Consultation outcome

Call for Evidence to support the near elimination of biodegradable waste disposal in landfill from 2028

Updated 12 February 2025

1. Introduction

The purpose of this Call for Evidence was to seek evidence and data to help support development and targeting of policies that will achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste being sent to landfill from 2028. Seeking to eliminate as far as possible the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste is key to meet our net zero objectives and support the development of a Circular Economy. As landfill is the biggest contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the waste sector (~72% of the total emissions from the Waste Sector 1), this policy could play an important role in reducing emissions from landfill and achieving our net zero ambitions.  

A full consultation will be launched on developed policies in due course. We hope to undertake this consultation this year, but that is dependent on detailed policy development and continued stakeholder engagement. This summary of responses sets out details of the views, opinions and other qualitative evidence received to the Call for Evidence, it does not set out new government policy or commitments, but does indicate some of what we intend to explore through the consultation. 

This government is committed to creating a roadmap to a circular economy – a future where:

• we keep our resources in use for longer
• waste is reduced
• we accelerate the path to net zero
• we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs
• our economy prospers
• nature thrives

As part of this we will consider the role of achieving the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill from 2028 and its removal from the residual waste stream in the context of circularity, economic growth, and reaching net zero. This Call for Evidence was intended to ensure any proposed government intervention, as well as its timing, is targeted and evidence based. However, we encourage waste producers, Local Authorities, waste operators and investors to consider their own practices and explore options to prevent biodegradable wastes from being sent to landfill at the earliest opportunity ahead of any formal policy intervention. 

This Call for Evidence ran for seven weeks, from 26 May to 14 July 2023.

2. Overview of responses

A total of 62 responses were received, 37 on Citizen Space and 25 via email. Eight respondents wished to keep their submissions confidential. One response was discounted as no name was given or questions answered. Two responses were received which were subsequently resubmitted by the respondents to reflect additional information gathered. The original responses were therefore discounted at the respondents’ request and only the final submission was considered. There were no responses submitted that were considered collectively as part of a campaign.  

The breakdown of responses by respondent ‘type’ is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: breakdown of the 61 responses that were analysed by type of organisation

Type of Organisation	number of responses
Waste management company	13
Waste disposal authority	10
Unitary authority	7
product designer, manufacturer or pack filler	1
Other local government body	1
Other	6
Non-governmental organisation	3
Local government	2
Landfill operator	2
Individual	2
Consultancy	2
Charity or social enterprise	1
Business representative organisation or trade body	11

3. Summary of main themes

• Planned and unplanned shutdowns of Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities and seasonal variations in the tonnages and composition of residual waste can influence decisions to dispose of biodegradable waste in landfill. Lack of space for storage of waste during shutdowns or periods where EfW is stretched is also a contributory factor.   

• Landfill is still considered useful for these reasons and for other contingency situations, particularly as waste can be accepted at short notice and there are usually no restrictions on tonnages. Respondents expressed that it is essential that government maintains some landfill provision for biodegradable waste.  

• Cost and proximity of waste infrastructure are important factors influencing waste disposal choices.  

• The government’s ambition to eliminate biodegradable waste from landfill may not be achievable without policy and certainty of timing around consistent collections in recycling (the Government Response relating to Simpler Recycling (formerly known as Consistency in Recycling) was published on 21 October 2023), particularly food waste, and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging.  

• Government needs to allow adequate time for alternative treatment infrastructure to be developed. However, challenges around finding suitable sites and securing planning permission whilst competing with housing targets and local objections, and the perceived slow pace of the environmental permitting process, are considered barriers to achieving this.  

• For biodegradable waste diversion policies to be effective, they must be supported by rigorous regulation and enforcement to limit opportunities for misreporting, illegal disposals, and waste crime.  

• Policy makers need to take a holistic view of all policies relevant to the waste sector and work together to ensure there are no unintended consequences, and that additional burdens on authorities are sufficiently monitored.

4. Next steps

We will begin informal stakeholder engagement shortly and hope to consult on detailed policies this year. This is however dependent on detailed policy development and continued stakeholder engagement. 

Policy development will include consideration of other related policies and associated timings, including the expansion of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to waste incineration and EfW.  

On reflection of the responses received we particularly intend to explore: 

• expanding the list of separately collected wastes that are prohibited from disposal at landfill (or incineration) without some form of treatment process to include all 5 CCC recommended materials (paper and card, food, garden waste, textiles and wood), as per responses to Question 37

• determining how we can eliminate wood wastes from being sent to landfill, including as part of a mixed waste

• extending focus to all biodegradable wastes, such as municipal and non-municipal, at the same time, as per responses to Question 50

5. Responses by topic

A high-level overview of responses is given in this section, broken down by topic as set out in the Call for Evidence document. No submitted data has informed this summary of responses. Instead, these will be analysed carefully and will inform during the process of policy development.  

Since this Call for Evidence, further information has been provided regarding Simpler Recycling. This was formerly known as ‘Consistency in Recycling’. Where respondents have used the term ‘consistent collections’, ‘consistent recycling’, ‘consistency’ or similar terms, this is a reference to the same policy as Simpler Recycling.

5.1 Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme

Q7. Does your organisation/authority have in place an active policy to minimise or avoid the landfilling of biodegradable waste?

Answer given	number of responses	Percentage (%)
Yes	22	36
No	7	11
Not applicable	15	24
Not answered	17	27

In response to the request to share details of strategies, 29 (47% of those who answered the question) included information on existing practices in their response.

Q8. If you do actively divert biodegradable waste from landfill, how is this waste treated?

A number of different treatment processes were given in response to this question detailing the respondents’ approaches to managing different materials. EfW and anaerobic digestion (AD) were the most predominant treatments given for kerbside collected residual waste and for food waste respectively.

Q9. If you do not have an active policy, does your organisation/authority have any plans to implement policies or actions to divert biodegradable waste from landfill?

Five respondents answered yes to this question and 14 respondents shared details of their existing or planned policies on landfilling biodegradable waste. Six respondents answered no to this question.

5.2 Residual waste treatment

Q10. Do you manage biodegradable waste? 

Almost half (49%) of respondents (30) answered yes to managing biodegradable waste.

Q11. If you do manage biodegradable waste, what proportion (%) of this waste do you usually send to [a list of treatments as set out in the CfE document]:

Table 2: Number of respondents for each response category and treatment type.

Treatment type	0 to 20%	21 to 40%	41 to 60%	61 to 80%	81 to 100%
Energy from waste	4	4	2	5	6
Incineration without energy recovery	1	0	0	0	0
Landfill	17	2	1	0	0
Anaerobic Digestion	7	5	1	1	1
Composting	5	3	2	1	9
Other	5	6	0	0	1

Respondents answered this question by giving percentages of treatment for a range of separately collected wastes, such as paper and card, wood and food waste, as well as percentages for residual waste. Other treatments given included Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) and processing into Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF) and Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF) that can be incinerated to provide energy for a number of industrial processes.

Q12. Can you describe any factors or issues that influence your choice of biodegradable waste disposal routes?

Thirty-one respondents answered this question. Costs of disposal and proximity to nearby waste infrastructure were widely considered to be key factors that influence disposal choices. Other factors included the waste hierarchy and the sustainability agendas of the organisation or customer. Contractual obligations and operational factors, such as where waste requires bulking at a waste transfer station for example, were also mentioned.

Q13. If you do not routinely send your waste to landfill, how often do you use landfill as a disposal method where there is no alternative option?

A total of 23 respondents answered this question.

Table 3: table of responses to Q13

Answer given	number of responses	Percentage (%)
Never	8	34
Often (monthly)	7	30
Sometimes (less than monthly but at least once a year)	7	30
Very often (more than once a month)	1	4

Q14. What are the circumstances in which you have used or would consider using landfill as a contingency or emergency disposal option? 

A response to this question was received from 30 respondents. The majority of respondents gave shutdown of EfW facilities, both for planned maintenance and in cases where there is no extra capacity, as the reason that biodegradable waste may be disposed of in landfill. A clear theme in response to this question was that landfill is still considered useful for this reason and for other contingency situations, particularly as waste can be accepted at short notice and there are usually no restrictions on tonnages.

Q15. If there are any seasonal fluctuations, including seasonal novelty biodegradable wastes, that impact your waste disposal options, do you have any evidence as to the quantities and composition of these wastes, as well as how they are treated and coded before being disposed of in landfill? 

Fifteen respondents volunteered information on seasonal factors that can cause additional demand on landfill as a disposal route. Demand on landfill can increase during the summer period for certain authorities as this is when seasonal movement of populations for holidays can overwhelm local EfW capacity. Christmas, bank holidays and major special events of national significance were also factors that increased treatment demand and which had an effect on the composition of residual waste. Specifically, statistically significant increases of waste coded 20 03 01 occur due to the volume of residual waste being disposed of after Christmas.

Q16. If you manage biodegradable waste, how often do you send waste for inter-UK disposal in landfill (i.e. from England to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland)?

A total of 28 respondents answered this question, with 89% of respondents stating they never send biodegradable waste for inter-UK disposal in landfill.

Table 3: table of responses to Q16

Answer given	number of responses	Percentage (%)
Never	25	89
Often	0	0
Sometimes	2	7
Very often	1	3

Q17. Are there specific circumstances that influence decisions to send biodegradable waste for inter-UK disposal? 

Eleven respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents felts that lack of treatment capacity in England is the circumstance that most influences inter-UK disposal. Logistical costs and location of intermediary and treatment infrastructure in proximity to the Scottish and Welsh borders, along with contractual obligations were also considered factors.

Q18. Do you have any evidence or data that details the composition of the 20 03 01 and 19 12 12 waste codes dating from 2011 onwards/that is less than 10 years old? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

Evidence and compositional data were provided by 23 respondents in response to this question.

Q19. Do you have a view on why significantly more 19 12 12 waste is sent to landfill than Energy from Waste (EfW)? If your answer is yes, please provide information or evidence to support your view.

Evidence and data were provided by 24 respondents in response to this question. The main reason given was that 19 12 12 waste consists of a large number of Trommel fines and other processing residues from waste treatment, which are often not suitable for EfW because of their unpredictable combustion characteristics. In addition, some respondents highlighted that the Landfill Tax for qualifying fines applies a low rate of Landfill Tax. Erroneous and fraudulent application of the regime means the lower rate is often applied without due regard to the organic content, which makes disposal cheaper at landfill.    

Another respondent suggested that the levying of the Dutch import tax on RDF in 2020 was also considered to be a key driver, as 19 12 12 residues produced by waste sorting and treatment processes often used in the composition of RDF are now going to landfill. The fact that EfW capacity is frequently contracted to Waste Disposal Authorities, resulting in a lack of capacity for commercially produced 19 12 12, was also considered a contributory factor.

Q20. Do you know of any innovations, solutions or ideas as to how mixed wastes could be treated or sorted, or existing sorting improved, to remove biodegradable material from these waste streams? If your answer is yes, please share details, including any information as to why these innovations or solutions are not widely adopted if applicable.

A total of 34 respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents suggested that getting biodegradable waste out of the residual waste stream at source where materials can retain some value would offer the best solution for mixed waste. Sorting materials post disposal through MBT where they are too contaminated offers little benefit in relation to costs. Some respondents felt that this approach should start immediately with separate food waste collections, alongside a programme of support and education for authorities, businesses and the public.

Other solutions offered included pre-treatment of mixed waste into RDF for various applications, advances in sorting through AI and mechanical extraction for dry materials and diversion of wet organic matter for biological treatment, and bio stabilisation prior to landfilling via in-vessel composting (IVC). There was a general view that MBT for mixed residual waste is an expensive technology, with a track record of high-profile failures.

5.3 Waste fines

Q21. Do you have any evidence or data that details the composition and sources of the waste code 19 10 04: fluff-light fraction and dust from shredding of metal-containing wastes? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.   

Nine respondents shared evidence and data in response to this question.

Q22. Do you support the establishment of a specific waste code(s) for waste fines? Please explain your view, including evidence or data to support your view if available. 

A total of 25 (80% of responses given) respondents answered yes to this question and six (19%) respondents answered no. Those who supported the introduction of specific waste codes for waste fines reasoned that it would allow regulators to more readily identify and track misdescription and will achieve better environmental outcomes, particularly for fines that may contain hazardous material.  

For those who answered no, additional burdens through contract management costs and changes to permits were given as reasons, as well as the need to maintain consistency with the EU and other UK administrations. One respondent suggested that keeping waste fines in the residual waste stream will allow them to be treated at EfW and keep them out of landfill all together.

Q23. Do you have any evidence or data to support or oppose the use of separately engineered cells for the landfilling of waste fines only? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

Nine respondents gave their views in response to this question. Overall, views were negative towards mono disposal of waste fines, citing rising costs, the need to source virgin material as landfill cover instead, and minimal GHG savings as landfill gas extraction would not be viable.

Q24. Do you have any evidence or data to support or oppose the introduction of waste acceptance criteria that sets stringent controls on the amount of sulphur bearing waste present in waste fines? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

Eight respondents gave their views in response to this question. Views expressed were that, due to its corrosive effect and need for additional flue gas treatment, sulphur bearing waste is problematic for EfW plants. Another view was that enforcement of criteria should be carried out evenly and fairly to ensure that it did not result in any competitive disadvantage. One respondent suggested that removing biodegradable waste from landfill will negate the need for controls.

5.4 Identification and enforcement

Q25. Would you recommend a particular method by which biodegradable waste could be identified prior to disposal at landfill? Please share any evidence and/or data that supports your recommendation.

A range of views in response to this question were given by 29 respondents. Multiple respondents considered that separate collection of all biodegradable waste from households and Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) was the answer. Others were in favour of data collection and reporting through increased sampling and compositional analyses of residual waste. Aligning with the process of identification that will be used by Scotland when introduced in December 2024 was considered appropriate by some respondents.

Q26. Are there, in your opinion, any avoidant behaviours or unintended consequences that may occur as a result of using a particular method of identifying biodegradable waste? Please share any evidence and/or data that supports your view. 

Views were given by 23 respondents to this question, which included concerns about increased incentives for waste crime, ‘orphan wastes’ that will have no practical or safe alternative method of disposal, and the necessity of ensuring consistency by aligning the cost of disposing at landfill with the UK ETS to ensure that landfill does not become the cheaper option, as well as with the identification method that will be used by Scotland.

5.5 Municipal and non-municipal wastes received at landfill

Municipal waste

Q27. What are the barriers to using alternative treatment for these materials other than landfill?

Table 4: responses to question 27

Waste code	number of respondents	Examples and views given on barriers to alternative treatment
19 05 03 – off specification compost	29	- Consists of soil like material that is non-compliant with PAS100 and PAS110 due to contamination, and which cannot be processed at EfW due to its inert nature and moisture content. Proximity, cost and lack of alternative treatment options will support decisions to send to landfill. - Confusion around Waste Acceptance Criteria. - The lack of an agreed specification for the quality of manufactured soils for recovery and reuse
19 12 10 – combustible waste	24	- Considered most likely to consist of Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). RDF as a definition can be simply that is pre-treated prior to going to domestic EfW or high grade shredded waste that is used in cement works or energy facilities, or exported. - Perceived lack of permitting and policy support for Advanced Conversion Technologies that could potentially turn this waste into energy, including fuels. It was felt that this waste stream will diminish as production of sustainable aviation fuel from RDF increases. - Lack of local EfW treatment capacity, and Landfill Tax rates have not kept pace with inflation in recent years. This means the difference between landfill and EfW gate fees, which incorporate inflationary pressures, has reduced, making landfill disposal more financially attractive. - The Dutch government imposed an incineration tax for RDF in 2020, leading to a significant decline in an established export market for RDF.
20 01 08 – biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste	31	- Consists of separately collected biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste. - Barriers include lack of collection systems and service provision. Once separate food waste collection is in place, this waste stream could be captured consistently and sent for AD processing.
20 02 01 – biodegradable waste	26	- Consists of greenwaste, grass, horticultural waste, parks and garden waste (including cemetery waste), all of which cannot go to EfW due to moisture content. This waste stream is often contaminated with other materials like plastics, textiles and metals. - Cost of separating out contaminants using on site specialist equipment is prohibitive, leading to a lack of infrastructure at re-processors to separate or clean up specific materials. Lack of awareness or aversion to the risk of using new and innovative technological solutions is also a contributory factor. - Inconsistencies with waste code application across the industry.
20 03 03 – street cleaning residues	27	- Street sweepings often comprise litter and hazardous materials, and as existing evidence has suggested, high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). This can make treatment through organics recycling difficult. - A lack of infrastructure at re-processors to screen and separate specific materials within this waste stream, coupled with the need to dry and mix mechanical sweepings to ensure acceptance at EfWs. - Fly tipped wastes often refused by EfW due to unknown mixture of materials damaging equipment. - The Compost Quality Protocol excludes ‘road sweepings and gully waste’ from the types of biodegradable waste it allows as a feedstock.
20 03 07 – bulky waste	27	- Bulky waste usually requires pre-treatment (shredding as a minimum) before incineration due to its size and not all EfWs have capacity. Some EfWs will not accept shredded bulky waste due to its high calorific value and impact on burn efficiency and throughput, which can cause issues with the operation and emissions of an EfW. One waste management company reported that over a 6-month period, 75% of bulky waste accepted at landfill was mattresses. - Lack of infrastructure and technology to recycle and recover the different components is complex and not always feasible. This, along with restrictions on space, additional requirements under permitting and cost of investment are considered barriers. - Prior to the introduction of the Dutch incineration tax, this stream was often used to produce RDF and exported. - Availability of pre-treatment infrastructure and the need to balance proximity and costs: bulky waste is expensive to transport. - Reuse and repair are not currently incentivised via EPR Schemes for bulky waste and once these items are in the waste system, they are difficult to extract and repair or refurbish to meet the end of waste test.
20 01 38 and 19 12 07 – wood	26	- It was generally considered that there are well established end markets for waste wood and that very little actually goes to landfill. - The waste code 20 01 38 is considered to consist largely of separately collected wood from HWRCs, fly tipping and Construction and Demolition (C&D) sector. Some of this wood may be contaminated, however identifying and separating from non-hazardous wood can be difficult. - Landfilled wood could be material that has not met the input specification for wood recycling or biomass facilities. - Due to size, wood cannot always be accepted by EfW without shredding as a minimum. In such cases landfill may be the only feasible option. - Proximity of EfW facilities and space for storage at transfer stations to ensure that haulage is cost effective. In general, the waste wood market tends to be relatively volatile and this needs to be factored in when considering this material. - 19 12 07 is a waste stream produced by the sorting of mixed C&D waste and is often low in quality.

Q28. Do you have a view on how government could help support alternative treatments for this waste? If yes, please share any supporting evidence and/or data.

A total of 36 respondents offered their views in response to this question. A recurring theme raised by respondents was that implementation of consistent recycling collections [Simpler Recycling] was key, and that financial support for infrastructure development, including support for emerging and new technologies, through tax reliefs, seed funding and a Landfill Tax escalator could help support the development of alternatives for this waste. Planning policy was considered important in ensuring the right infrastructure in the right place. Support for green gas collection and electricity generation from AD was also mentioned.

Q29. Do you have any evidence or data that can help identify the materials and sources of the waste codes shown in Table 1 of the Call for Evidence document [Municipal waste codes and tonnages] that denote ‘biodegradable waste’ and ‘Off-specification compost’?

Ten respondents answered this question. The sources of ‘off specification compost’ were given as material that doesn’t meet the PAS100 standard, rejected organic waste inputs from AD and composting facilities – due in some cases to mechanical breakdown at facilities - and organic waste contaminated with litter or plastic not suitable for treatment.

Bulky waste

Q30. Do you have any evidence or data on how much non-POPs containing biodegradable bulky waste is sent for disposal in landfill? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

Twelve respondents answered this question. Most supplied data in response to this question and some views were expressed about the challenge of providing reliable evidence due to inconsistencies in approach and expectation across the sector on waste characterisation and classification.

Q31. How can government support the movement of these materials for treatment further up the waste hierarchy?

A total of 31 respondents answered this question. The main suggestions given for ensuring that non-POPs containing bulky waste items are not landfilled included Extended Producer Responsibility (particularly for mattresses), better support for reuse, repair and refurbishment - including provision of reuse shops at HWRCs, and financial support for both the separate collection of bulky waste items, and for separate storage at HWRCs and waste transfer stations, which can often lack the necessary space.

Non-municipal waste

Q32. Do you have any views, evidence or data that explains why the materials shown in Table 2 in the Call for Evidence document [non municipal waste codes and tonnages] are sent to landfill as opposed to alternative treatment higher up the waste hierarchy?

There were 17 responses received in relation to non-inert fines. No responses were received in relation to the other materials shown in Table 2. Cost of separating highly mixed waste streams for constituent recycling and lack of alternative treatment infrastructure were given as reasons for landfilling non-inert fines.

Q33. How can government support the movement of these materials for treatment further up the waste hierarchy?

A total of 28 respondents answered this question. Government encouragement to the private sector to develop alternative infrastructure was suggested, along with revisions to the planning process to unlock barriers to the development of new infrastructure was mentioned. Policy that includes the separate collection of materials from the commercial sector, in part to avoid cross contamination, was suggested, although it was pointed out that, as these materials are often treatment residues, options for treatment higher up the waste hierarchy are limited. To avoid confusion and miscoding, a simplification of the List of Wastes and its alignment to process activities was suggested. Others considered a revision of the waste hierarchy to include innovative processes such as chemical recycling was needed.

Q34. Do you have any evidence or data that details the composition of materials within each category of waste received at landfill as listed above and their origins/sources?

Five respondents shared evidence or data in response to this question.

Q35. Do you have any evidence or data that details the composition of the mixed non-municipal waste code: 19 02 03 – premixed waste composed only of non-hazardous waste; and 19 08 01 – Screenings? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

Six respondents answered this question. No evidence was given for 19 02 03. Waste code 19 08 01 was considered to be screenings from wastewater treatment plants that is unsuitable for EfW due to its moisture content, for which a discount to Landfill Tax for water content can be applied.

Q36. Do you have any evidence or data that details the origins/sources of these two waste codes? If your answer is yes, please share the evidence and/or data.

There were no responses to this question.

The five key biodegradable materials recommended for elimination from landfill by the Climate Change Committee

Q37. Are you aware of any barriers to expanding the list of separately collected wastes that are prohibited from disposal at landfill (or incineration) without some form of treatment process to include wood, card, textiles, food and garden waste? Please explain your answer.

Thirty-four respondents answered this question. On the whole, respondents were in favour of expanding the list of separately collected materials prohibited from disposal in landfill. However, it was felt that infrastructure must be in place evenly across the country to reprocess these materials, and end markets established. Textiles were highlighted as problematic as they are currently not separately collected and the logistics do not exist to scale up their diversion from landfill.   

The cost of collecting a wider range of materials was mentioned, along with concerns about existing regulations for wood and bulky waste, where some elements are considered hazardous and others not. Concerns about regulation and enforcement and the need for a ‘de minimis’ level were also expressed.

Textiles municipal waste

Q39. Which of the two mixed waste codes (20 03 01 and 19 12 12) are most household and commercial municipal textiles landfilled under?

A total of ten respondents replied that most household and commercial municipal textiles are landfilled under 20 03 01. None of the respondents answered with 19 12 12.

Q40. For textiles recorded under the 19 12 12 waste code arriving at landfill, where does this usually come from, e.g., a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC), or a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)?

Sixteen respondents answered this question. Five respondents thought textiles recorded under 19 12 12 usually came from MRFs and four thought they originated from HWRCs. The remaining respondents seemed unsure.

Q41. Can you provide any data on the biodegradable composition of textiles in the two mixed waste codes?

There were a handful of responses to this question. One commented that there is innovation in the area of biodegradable textiles. One respondent said that although they did a study on the composition of their waste, they could not see what proportion of their textile waste was biodegradable. One respondent pointed out that many textiles are made up of a mixture of fabrics but it should be assumed that cotton and wool at least is biodegradable. There was no data provided in response to this question.

Q42. Based on your experience, what is the general quality of textiles found in these two mixed waste codes? If you find there is a mix of quality, please detail a percentage against each category.

A couple of respondents replied that they had no view. Others expressed a range of views.

Table 5: Number of respondents for each response category (%) and the quality of textiles

Answer given	0 to 20%	21 to 40%	41 to 60%	61 to 80%	81 to 100%
Unusable	2	0	0	0	0
Very poor quality or contaminated	0	0	0	4	9
Poor quality but no contaminated - in need of repair	1	1	1	1	0
Good quality - usable but showing signs of wear and use	1	1	1	0	0
Very good quality - like new	2	0	0	0	0

The above responses suggest that respondents have not done in-depth analysis of the quality of their textile waste, although the responses indicate that generally quality is not good.

Q43. Is there any difference, in your experience, between the quality and type of household and commercial municipal textiles waste?

There were 18 responses to this question giving a mixture of views. Most respondents said that commercial textile waste was of a higher quality than household waste, which was often contaminated and included unrecyclable items such as pillows and duvets. One respondent did state that household textile waste was of a better quality.

Q44. Do you have any suggestions for incentives government could introduce to divert textiles, particularly biodegradable textiles, from landfill and for treatment that offers better environmental outcomes in accordance with the waste hierarchy?

There were 28 responses to this question. Nine respondents were in favour of an EPR for textiles. This was the most popular suggestion. A few other respondents felt that it was important to keep textiles out of landfill and not send them for incineration and a few respondents felt that exporting textiles was an environmental concern. Other suggestions included eco-design of textiles with the intention of keeping them in use for longer, more funding for local authorities to develop recycling infrastructure and weight-based tax incentives to encourage more recycling. It was suggested that reducing the amount of textiles that we consume should be encouraged. In other words, educating householders and consumers was important. One respondent stated that legislation was necessary to effectively ban the disposal of textiles in residual waste.

Q45. Should businesses be required to present textiles waste separately for collection? Please explain your answer.

Twenty-one respondents answered yes to this question and six responded no.  

There were a range of reasons given in favour of businesses separating textile waste for collection. Most respondents thought it would help to prevent cross contamination and preserve quality, resulting in more material going to reuse rather than recycling, and that there was no justifiable reason not to do it. For those that answered no, this was on that the basis that it should only be required for those businesses that create textile waste. Another felt that there were not sufficient end markets at the moment and that this was more of an issue than sufficient feedstock.

Q46. In your experience, what would be the opportunities and difficulties associated with this? Do you have any evidence to support your response?

There were 13 responses to this question expressing a range of views. These included the current lack of incentives to separate textiles, lack of commercial collectors and increased costs to business that could be passed to consumers. Four respondents said that consumer apathy was a challenge; consumers are used to buying cheap fast fashion and would not want this to change. Some respondents stated that it is important that textiles are processed in the UK and not exported overseas. One respondent said that their authority had allocated space at an HWRC for carpets and curtains but stopped because only small amounts were collected.

Other challenges included: 

• increasing collection of materials without developing the capacity to recycle will result in a continuation of the existing situation and not push textiles up the waste hierarchy 

• it is difficult to deal with small volumes and emissions from transportation of textiles should be considered

• kerbside collections have traditionally collected small amounts - HWRCs generate larger amounts

• without legislation, keeping textiles out of landfill on a voluntary basis will be challenging

5.6 Interaction with other waste policies

Q47. Based on your perspective, to what extent do you think that the government’s committed policies, taken collectively, will achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill? Please explain your view.

Table 6: responses to question 47.

Answer given	number of responses	Percentage (%)
Not at all (no change in current situation)	0	0
Somewhat (will divert some (less than half) biodegradable waste going to landfill, but not all)	24	60
Will ensure that a significant majority (more than half, but less than 90%) of biodegradable waste, for which there are alternative treatment options, is diverted from landfill	15	37.5
Completely (will divert nearly all (more than 90%) biodegradable waste, for which there are alternative treatment options, from landfill)	1	2.5

Forty respondents answered this question. For those that responded that policies will somewhat or significantly divert biodegradable waste from landfill, it was clear that this is contingent on clarity on the introduction of government waste policies, particularly consistent recycling collections [Simpler Recycling], EPR for packaging and digital waste tracking. Funding support for local authorities for these policies was considered critical to meeting the 2028 target, as was the timing and alignment of the introduction of other polices, including expansion of the UK ETS to waste incineration and EfW, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and the ongoing review of planning policy. 

Views were also expressed around the limited GHG savings from further focus on municipal waste and that as a result, policies should be concentrated on non-municipal waste. Increases in Landfill Tax rates (aligned with inflation) for the target materials was considered by a few respondents to be necessary to prompt investment in infrastructure prior to 2028. 

Some respondents felt that, in practice, there will always be an element of biodegradable waste in the residual waste stream as a result of geographical limitations on pre-treatment and alternative disposal options, and that full compliance on recycling was unlikely.

Q48. Do you have a view on alternative bio-recycling routes for the diverted biodegradable waste other than anaerobic digestion and composting in line with the government’s priority use principles for biomass? If your answer is yes, can you provide evidence to support your view.

Twenty respondents answered this question. A number responded that there will be increasing competition for biowaste feedstock as demand for bio-based resources to replace fossil fuels and feedstocks grows. There are emerging technologies for producing aviation fuels from residual waste, chemical products from biorefining and alternative feedstocks, e.g., for fish farms. It was felt by a number of respondents that there is currently confusion about allocation of biomass resources and that clarity was needed by publishing the Government’s Biomass Strategy2 and priority use framework. 

Views were expressed about new EfW plants with CCS capability, where the burning of biogenic waste will result in negative emissions. This will create a clear advantage over AD as emissions are released during the AD process and when combusted. However, it was pointed out that composting and AD facilities provide much needed alternatives to chemical fertilisers and are beneficial to the health of our soils.

Q49. Are there any instruments you could suggest that would be effective in eliminating biodegradable waste to landfill? If yes, please explain your thinking include what financial mechanism would be appropriate and how this could work.

A total of 41 respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents considered that increases to Landfill Tax rates that are realigned with inflation will be most effective. One respondent suggested that the introduction of a middle band of Landfill Tax could incentivise waste bio stabilisation prior to disposal in landfill. Other fiscal policies were suggested where the financial burden falls to the polluter in line with the Polluter Pays Principle. These included modulated EPR for carpets, textiles and clothing, bulky waste and mattresses, all of which can contain biodegradable materials. Pay As You Throw, a tax on textiles that contain less than 25% recycled materials and inclusion of landfill in the UK ETS were also suggested.  

The introduction of separate collection schemes was considered by many respondents to be critical. Mandatory separation at source for commercial and industrial sources was suggested, potentially accompanied by financial penalties for non-compliance, as was legal powers for local authorities to make recycling in a domestic setting compulsory. To support these policies, concerted communications around behaviour change would be necessary.

5.7 Timing of policies to eliminate biodegradable waste from landfill

Q50. Do you have any thoughts or evidence as to how policy interventions should be sequenced so as to achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste to Landfill?

Table 7: responses to question 50.

Answer given	number of responses	Percentage (%)
Focus on municipal waste only	0	0
Focus initially on municipal waste before expanding policies to non-municipal waste	6	13
Focus on non-municipal waste only	2	4.5
Focus on all biodegradable waste	23	52
Target specific wastes (municipal and non-municipal) now that can be diverted to alternative treatment	7	16
Other	6	13

A total of 44 respondents answered this question. The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that all biodegradable (municipal and non-municipal) wastes should be targeted at the same time. These respondents thought that it was important to focus on all organic waste streams from the start, including mixed wastes, to ensure that wastes that transfer from municipal into non-municipal waste streams through pre-treatment, for example, are captured, and to ensure a consistency of approach within the whole system. Although focussing on municipal waste may offer a quick win, a number of respondents felt that focus should now move to non-municipal waste as it offered the greater potential for GHG savings. Some respondents felt that the collection and packaging reforms will eliminate the majority of remaining municipal waste going to landfill. 

A number of respondents (13%) considered that initial and immediate focus was needed on the collection and packaging reforms, especially separate food waste collection, from households and businesses. If these policies are implemented well before 2028, there will be time for policies to be developed that target all biodegradable waste from 2028. In support of a phased approach, views were expressed around the need for early clarity on policies and timelines for implementation in order for investment to be secured and new infrastructure to be developed.  

For those who answered that specific wastes should be targeted (16%), a ‘priority list’ was suggested for wastes that can be diverted now, before moving on to more problematic wastes for which alternative treatment can be developed.  

No respondents suggested that focus should only be on municipal wastes.

Q51. Having considered the timing of other policies, are there circumstances that may arise as a result of interaction with these policies that you would like us to be alert to? Please explain your answer.

There were 36 responses to this question. The most held view was that further delays and uncertainty around implementation of the collection and packaging reforms, particularly separate collection of food waste, could cause issues in achieving the near elimination of biodegradable waste being sent to landfill from 2028. This is because uncertainty will delay investment in alternative infrastructure and will give insufficient time to allow the sector to plan and prepare, for example, negotiating on their longer-term contacts.  

A number of respondents said that a comprehensive ban on organic waste and an associated increase in Landfill Tax to ensure compliance should be introduced at the same time as the UK ETS for waste incineration and EfW, to ensure waste disposal in landfill is not incentivised by cost considerations. Potential divergence in timing from the EU ETS was also mentioned.  

Other views were expressed around considering the comparative environmental impacts of alternative treatment, including the extra energy required for processing and pre-treatment. Concerns were expressed around the financial impacts of changes to government subsidies for energy from biomass on the provision of waste infrastructure, including uncertainty around the role of AD in the Green Gas Support Scheme, the end of the Renewable Obligations Scheme in 2027 and changes to Renewable Heat Initiative and Feed in Tariffs. Advanced Conversion Technologies utilising waste feedstocks and the SAF mandate were also mentioned.

Q52. Notwithstanding your response to Q50, in achieving the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill, do you have any evidence or thoughts of materials or waste codes that could be targeted before others, or should all biodegradable municipal waste be targeted at the same time?

A total of 29 responses were received to this question. Six respondents thought that all biodegradable wastes should be targeted at the same time. The majority of respondents however considered that separate food and garden waste collection from households and businesses for treatment should be tackled first. This will offer immediate reductions in landfill emissions as this waste is removed from the residual waste stream. Targeting food waste from the commercial and industrial sector was also suggested, as was all outputs from waste treatment processes that could contain organic material.  

Other materials suggested for priority focus were textiles, wood (on the basis that alternative treatment technologies are well developed) and fibre from commercial and industrial sources.

Q53. Are there materials that should be considered at a later stage or for exemption because there is no possible current or likely future alternative means of disposal for that waste? Please explain your view.

There were 25 responses to this question. Mattresses in particular, as well as carpets and bedding textiles such as duvets and pillows, were highlighted as having limited scope for alternative management due to availability of re-processors and the cost associated with manually shredding and/or extracting multiple component materials. Nappies and absorbent hygiene products were also highlighted. Respondents felt that any exemption should be on a temporary basis while efforts are focused on finding suitable treatment processes that can be made widely available.  

A number of respondents mentioned compostable plastic as another material to consider for exemption. Currently there is very limited processing capacity and such plastics can cause contamination issues in dry recycling. Off specification compost was also mentioned, as a by-product of reprocessing and as a material often used in landfill maintenance. 

Others felt that all waste streams should be targeted at the same time to avoid incentivising misclassification and illegal disposal.

Q54. Are you aware of any barriers to bringing forward implementation of policies to achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste to 2026, taking account of necessary lead in times to prepare the sector? Please explain your answer.

A total of 36 respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents felt that due to delays and uncertainty around new burdens funding and the statutory requirements of the collection and packaging reforms, an earlier implementation date would not be feasible. More time will be needed for the development of additional intermediate and disposal capacity to avoid more burdens for LAs, who may struggle to comply in time. Uncertainty over POPs legislation, the ongoing Landfill Tax review and the need to align planning policy to deliver waste reforms were also considered factors favouring a 2028 implementation date, as was aligning with the implementation date for the UK ETS waste expansion. Others felt that in the context of a phased approach, diverting food and garden waste from landfill by 2026 was possible. 

A few respondents considered that there was currently sufficient EfW capacity that meant, along with the continued application of Landfill Tax, policies can be implemented as soon as possible.

Q55. Do you have a view as to whether we can and should seek to align biodegradable waste to landfill policy scope, timing and implementation in England to those being implemented across the UK? Please explain your view.

Thirty-four responses were received to this question. The majority of responses indicated that aligning policies, timing, identification method, increases in Landfill Tax and date of implementation in England to those in Scotland, Wales and NI was preferred.  

In reference to Scotland’s introduction of a ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, which will be implemented 31 December 2025, a number of respondents felt that without alignment, it was likely that banned waste will be landfilled in the north of England. One respondent considered that bringing policies forward to 2025 in line with Scotland will allow for much greater GHG savings by 2030, as long as policies were in place that disincentivised incineration. However, other respondents felt that Scotland’s date was too soon to allow the sector to sufficiently prepare and we will have more time to plan and prevent incentivising waste to go across borders from England.    

One Respondent recommended that the Resources and Waste Common Framework could underpin joint working on waste policies across the United Kingdom to ensure alignment as much as possible.

5.8 Waste Infrastructure

Q56. Do you have a view on how government can support the development of infrastructure required to manage biodegradable waste diverted from landfill? If yes, please explain your answer.

There were 46 responses to this question. A wide range of suggestions were given, with the most predominant being policy certainty on consistency in recycling [Simpler Recycling] and other waste reforms to underpin investor confidence.  

This was followed by changes to the planning and permitting systems to be more facilitative towards waste infrastructure development, as it was currently considered too slow and obstructive. These changes included government support for technical assessment and priority pathways for AD and composting facilities that can treat both municipal and commercial waste, making investment more attractive through economies of scale. Others felt that the Proximity Principle should be fully applied to enable local investment and a balanced provision of capacity across the country that could also take on extra capacity in the event of planned and unplanned EfW downtimes. It was recommended that the process of planning for waste infrastructure be considered at a national scale, rather than local. A number of respondents thought that implementation of specific targets for reducing biodegradable waste would underpin certainty in investment for infrastructure.  

Financial support from government was suggested in the form of funding for new technologies, circular logistics to drive down waste generation and for the transference of biomethane from AD sites to the National Grid. 

A smaller number of respondents considered that the market will take care of itself, with development instigated through increases in Landfill Tax and the mandatory reporting of commercial waste for waste tracking purposes which will lead to transparency in waste flows, thereby providing improved certainty in commercial decision making.

Q57. Do you have a view on how infrastructure development might impact on the potential phasing in of policies to eliminate biodegradable waste to landfill? If yes, please explain your view.

A total of 34 respondents answered this question. A number of respondents felt that a route map clearly detailing the timings for the phasing in of policies would be a good way to provide policy assurance and stability, essential for stimulating investment in the sector. Government support akin to that offered through the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme was mentioned.   

Again, the need for planning and environmental permitting processes to be expediated to meet short term as well as longer term infrastructure needs was raised. Changes to permitting to increase capacity could be facilitated.  

A few respondents felt that by 2028 there would be sufficient EfW capacity to meet demand, and that with the right policies in place – EPR for packaging, consistency in collections [Simpler Recycling], Landfill Tax and export constraints – infrastructure can be delivered within three years of confirmation of policies. Others however felt that policy development must align with what is reasonably achievable, and that focus should be on upstream solutions that prevent biodegradable waste from entering the residual waste stream.

Q58. Do you have a view on how government could support the prevention of biodegradable waste from arising in the first place? If yes, please explain your view.

Thirty respondents answered this question. Overwhelmingly respondents felt that greater emphasis and incentives should be focussed on designing waste out of the system through waste minimisation, reuse and recycling. It was felt by a number of respondents that food waste collection and   reporting of food waste by businesses will have a significant impact on levels of food waste to landfill.  

Other responses talked about focussing policies further upstream, such as removing best before dates, as well as increasing the redistribution of surplus food. Education campaigns to support consumer behaviour when purchasing, storing and discarding food, were also mentioned.  

An overhaul of the UK approach to the definition of waste was raised, where a material’s scope for reuse determines whether it becomes waste, rather than it just being discarded. One respondent mentioned the government’s delayed commitment to material consumption reduction targets using the powers set out in the 2021 Environment Act.

5.9 Soils to landfill

Q59. Do you agree that soils and mineral wastes are excluded from the scope of policies to achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill (with other cross-government policies focussed on the prevention and reuse of soils and mineral wastes, where appropriate)? Please share your views and any evidence and/or data that supports your reasoning.

A total of 34 respondents answered this question, with a significant majority of 28 (82%) agreeing that soils and mineral wastes should be excluded. This was because they were considered necessary for daily landfill cover, and to be generally low in putrescible content when compared to other biodegradable wastes. One respondent questioned how waste fines that can look similar to soil would be taken into account.  

There were six respondents (17%) who did not agree with their exclusion based on their scope for reuse in other applications. Adequate on-site storage space for soils and increases in Landfill Tax were considered suitable solutions for ensuring diversion from landfill.

5.10 Cost of achieving the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill

Q60. Are you aware of any potential costs that may arise as a result of the near elimination of biodegradable waste to landfill that should be taken into account? Please provide evidence if available to support your view.

Thirty respondents answered this question. Respondents felt that costs were likely to occur as a result of separate collection of commercial and industrial food and paper and card, and the cost associated with changes in long term disposal contracts to collect and treat diverted biodegradable waste where there are minimum tonnage requirements in place, including contracts for landfill disposal. For planned and unplanned EfW shutdowns, costs could be significant if landfill is no longer available as a contingency option. An increase in trade waste charges for businesses and the costs of independent verification of waste were also mentioned.  

Costs associated with developing new infrastructure to sort, potentially bio-stabilise and process biodegradable waste were also considered likely to occur. Such costs could be expected to fall to those authorities who have comparatively less alternative treatment capacity, either through the provision of new infrastructure or through the need to store and transport the waste to the nearest appropriate treatment.

Q61. Do you envisage any unintended consequences that the government should seek to avoid when developing policies to achieve the near elimination of biodegradable waste being sent to landfill?

There were 38 responses to this question. The largest number of respondents felt that it was critical that landfill provision is retained as a form of sanitary waste disposal in times of shutdown or maintenance of other processing infrastructure, and for wastes where there may be no viable alternative in the medium term. It was pointed out that such landfills may not be commercially viable, in part because the costs to extract and treat any landfill gas will outweigh any income from electricity generation. Concerns about a reduction in resilience of the sector to deliver high levels of sanitary waste treatment were expressed.  

It was thought that diversion policies will add a further layer of complexity to a multi-faceted, shifting and under regulated industry, resulting in increased Landfill Tax avoidance, misreporting and waste crime. Concerns about policies that may drive waste to EfW and export rather than recycling, and the need to ensure that the costs of landfilling are balanced with the costs of waste incineration and EfW under the UK ETS to ensure that landfill disposal remains the least favourable option were also expressed.       

It was felt that without treatment infrastructure that is sufficiently geographically dispersed, authorities in rural areas are likely to be disproportionately affected. Some respondents felt that having a comprehensive strategy that takes a holistic account of the number of waste policies that are in development was key. Others felt that it was important to have a clear definition of the term ‘biodegradable waste’ to avoid confusion around how to treat different types of biodegradable waste, for example, pre-treatment of paper and cardboard and natural fibre textiles prior to AD, as well as wood waste which cannot be anaerobically digested. Clarity on whether industrial biodegradable wastes, such as effluents, fit this definition was also suggested.

5.11 Additional Information

Q62. Any additional information or views to share?

The views expressed in this open question were wide-ranging from the benefits of nudging consumers into required behaviours, to stricter punishments for waste crime and the capacity of local authorities to respond to governmental consultations. Many respondents restated their support for the removal of biodegradable waste from landfill but nonetheless highlighted implementation concerns, these being; the need for contingency landfill capacity to accept biodegradable waste for emergency events and EfW downtime, the need to ensure disposal routes for more difficult biodegradable wastes and the need for awareness of the consequential effects on other waste management processes such as at EfW and at HWRCs.  Various means to optimise biodegradable waste processing for use as a feedstock for other processes were suggested.

5.12 Future of Landfill

Q63. Would you be interested in taking part in any conversations arounds the future role of landfill and other topics relevant to landfill policy?

A total of 44 respondents wished to be involved in discussions around future landfill policy.

6. List of Respondents 

• ADEPT  
• Attero BV  
• BBIA 
• Bedford Borough Council  
• Cambridgeshire County Council  
• Canal & River Trust  
• Central Bedfordshire Council  
• Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) 
• Chilled Food Association  
• Circular Fuels Ltd. 
• Cory Group 
• Cumberland Council  
• Dean, Georgina  
• Devon County Council  
• Dimeta  
• Dorset Council  
• Enfinium  
• Environmental Services Association (ESA)  
• FCC Environment 
• Food Service Equipment Association  
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority  
• Green Alliance 
• GWE Biogas Ltd. 
• Hampshire County Council  
• Ingevity Corporation  
• KEW Technology Ltd. 
• LARAC 
• Leicestershire County Council  
• Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority  
• Mineral Products Association  
• MJCA 
• National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO)  
• National Waste Technical Advisory Bodies Chairs  
• Newcastle City Council  
• North London Waste Authority  
• North Yorkshire Council  
• Novamont 
• Oxfordshire County Council  
• RDF Industry Group 
• The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA) 
• Re-Gen Waste  
• Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd.  
• Surrey County Council  
• The Wood Recyclers Association (WRA) 
• United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) 
• Viridor  
• WAGA Energy  
• West London Waste Authority  
• Wildlife and Countryside Link  
• Winter, Dominic  
• WPS Compliance Consulting Ltd.