Gate Fees 2018/19 Report Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options WRAP’s twelfth gate fees report analyses the gate fees charged for a range of waste treatment, recovery and disposal options as reported by local authorities. In addition, gate fees are supplied by organic facility operators. Research date: October 2018 – January 2019 Date: July 2019
72
Embed
Gate Fees 2018/19 Report Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options … gate fees report... · 2019-09-12 · WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Gate Fees 2018/19 Report
Comparing the costs of
alternative waste treatment
options
WRAP’s twelfth gate fees report analyses the gate fees charged for a range of waste treatment, recovery and disposal options as reported by local authorities. In addition, gate fees are supplied by organic facility operators.
Research date: October 2018 – January 2019 Date: July 2019
WRAP - Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
2
WRAP’s vision is a world in which resources are used sustainably. Our mission is to accelerate the move to a sustainable resource-efficient economy through re-inventing how we design, produce and sell products; re-thinking how we use and consume products; and re-defining what is possible through re-use and recycling.
WRAP - Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
3
Executive summary This report summarises the findings of WRAP’s twelfth annual gate fees survey. The survey
covers gate fees charged to local authorities in the UK for a range of municipal waste
recycling, recovery, treatment and disposal options, for the calendar year 2018. Given the
expected future growth in non-household recycling under the Circular Economy Package and
new Resources and Waste Strategy, commercial waste gate fees have been collected but are
reported in an accompanying report which can be found here.
The aim of this report is to increase price transparency and, by improving the flow of
information, improve efficiency in the waste management market. A lack of market
information may reduce a local authority’s ability to make informed decisions on waste
management options. The publication of indicative gate fee information should assist
authorities in making better informed decisions regarding waste management options and
benchmark what they might reasonably be expected to pay in gate fee.
Summary gate fee data reported by local authorities from 2018 for a range of technology
types are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the UK gate fees reported by local authorities, 2018 (£/tonnes)1
Treatment Materials / Type of
Facility / Grade Median Mode2 Range3
No of
gate
fees
reported
2017
median
gate
fees
MRF
All contracts (all wastes) £25 £5 to
£10
-£41 to
£97 91 £22
Contracts beginning in
2018 £35
£35 to
£40
-£3 to
£60 18 £354
In-Vessel
Composting
(IVC)
Mixed food & green £50 £50 to
£55
£28 to
£67 28 £49
All feedstock types £46 £55 to
£60
£10 to
£73 52 £46
Anaerobic
Digestion
(AD)
All gate fees £27 £15 to
£20
-£5 to
£68 62 £26
UK (contracts started
between 2016 - 2018) £19 £0 to £5
-£5 to
£50 18 -
Energy from
Waste (EfW)5 All £89
£85 to
£90
£44 to
£125 68 £86
1 All gate fees reported excluding haulage costs. 2 Mode is the gate fee range (in £5 increments) which received the most responses in the survey data. 3 Range lists simply the ranges between the maximum and minimum data points in the survey data collected.
4 Contracts beginning 2017 5 Incineration with energy recovery.
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Treatment Materials / Type of
Facility / Grade Median Mode2 Range3
No of
gate
fees
reported
2017
median
gate
fees
Pre-2000 facilities £65 £65 to
£70
£44 to
£89 20 £57
Post-2000 facilities £93 £85 to
£90
£50 to
£121 45 £89
Landfill
Non-hazardous waste
including landfill tax6 £113
£114 to
£119
£91 to
£176 76 £1067
Non-hazardous waste
excluding landfill tax £24
£25 to
£30
£2 to
£87 76 £20
Introduction Data gathering for this gate fee survey was conducted in November to December 2018,
collecting data for the 2018 calendar year. The survey targeted three main stakeholder
groups: local authorities (including unitary, waste collection and waste disposal authorities);
private sector operators of waste management facilities; and senior managers of large waste
management companies operating within the UK market.
The pricing of municipal waste management services can be complex. Users of the gate fee
information in this report should be aware of the following:
◼ Not all waste management services are costed or charged on a simple gate fee basis
(£/tonne). In some cases, a tonnage-related payment is just one element of a wider
unitary charge8 paid by an authority. For many authorities it is not appropriate, or
practicable, to isolate a pro-rata cost per tonne for a facility that may form just part of a
broader integrated service provision. As a consequence, only services for which it
has been possible to identify a gate fee (£/tonne) are included within this
report.
◼ The gate fee information for individual treatment options may not be directly applicable in
instances where multiple services are being procured. For example, a service that includes
collection together with EfW. Therefore, quoted gate fees are literally “at the gate” of the
facility in question and do not include the cost of additional services, such as collection
from households or transport to the waste management facility;.
◼ Contract terms, risk allocations and performance guarantees may vary significantly
between different authorities’ contracts, even in instances where the same technology is
being utilised. Such differences could have a significant impact on the associated gate fees
6 The standard rate of landfill tax for 2017/18 is £88.95 /tonne. 7 The standard rate of landfill tax for 2016/17 was £86.10 /tonne. 8 For an integrated or PFI infrastructure waste services contract, the private sector contractor can bundle the payments for a variety of waste management services (including potentially the initial capital spend and the ongoing maintenance and operation cost for associated waste management facilities) into a single ('unitary') charge to the local authority customer, rather than charging individual gate fees for each individual service.
5
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
(for instance, the contractor taking the risk for recyclates commodity price fluctuations
would result in a higher gate fee to compensate, than if risk sharing between the
contractor and local authority was utilised).
◼ A significant proportion of municipal waste management services are delivered under
medium to long-term contracts. Gate fees for such historic long-term contracts are
included in the survey sample but may not be reflective of the current market. However,
where reasonable samples were available the gate fees associated with more recent
contracts have been separately reported.
◼ Year on year changes in gate fees may reflect sampling variation. For instance, of the 221
local authorities responding in 2018, 155 also responded to the 2017 survey (70%), but 66
did not, meaning they are unique respondents to the 2018 survey. This difference in
samples needs to be considered when comparing the 2017 survey to those reported last
year.
◼ Gate fees in this report are presented in nominal terms with no adjustment for inflation.
Key Findings The key findings in this year’s survey are as follows for the UK:
Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
◼ The upward trend in MRF gate fee reported last year appears to be continuing. The
median MRF gate fee for contracts sorting 4 or more materials is £25/tonne, compared to
£22/tonne last year and £15/tonne in 2016. This year, 12% (15) of local authority
respondents report not paying a gate fee for MRF services, i.e. a zero or negative gate
fees, down from 16% (14) last year, 21% (20) in 2016 and 28% (30) in 2015. For
contracts signed in 2018, the median gate fee is £35/tonne and median contract length
down to 2 years.
◼ Of the 129 authorities supplying responses, 89 (69%) reported a change in gate fee in
2018 (64% in 2017), with 12 (19 in 2017) reporting a decrease (mostly due to new
contract negotiation or commodity price tracking) and 49 (39 in 2017) an increase in gate
fees (mostly due to indexation and commodity price tracking), again suggesting some
hardening in gate fees between 2017 and 2018. Of those reporting a change in gate fee
and providing a reason, 9 (11%) report the signing of a new contract, 13 (15%) report fee
change as result of a regular contractual review, 31 (36%) changes in commodity prices
(with an additional 13 (15%) as part of a contractual monthly or quarterly review giving a
total of 51%), 5 (6%) a change in the level of contamination (both increases and
decreases reported), and 25 (29%) contractual RPI increases.
◼ Interviews with contractors this year confirmed that the market is moving much more to a
fixed gate fee plus commodity price adjustments to minimise the risk to the operator, and
that contracting is getting more sophisticated with a trend to separate MRF processing and
commodity sales requirements managed in separate contracts. Although recyclate
commodity price fluctuation has the biggest impact on increasing MRF gate fees,
contamination is a particular issue and contracted contamination limits are reducing as
operators try to secure new markets and better prices for the recyclates they generate.
Contractors reported that by the end of 2018 typical gate fees for new local authority
contracts are £45-55/tonne.
6
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
In-Vessel Composting (IVC)
◼ The median IVC gate fee for all types of municipal feedstock (i.e. mixed organics, or green
or food waste presented separately) being sent to IVC facilities is £46/tonne, which is the
same gate fee as reported last year. The median gate fee for mixed food and green
waste, the most common feedstock type sent to IVC facilities, has increased by £1/tonne
since last year, to £50/tonne compared to £49/tonne. Operators cited a similar contract
gate fee for municipal mixed food and green waste of £48/tonne.
◼ Separate food waste is the most expensive at £61/tonne (the same as last year), and
green waste the least expensive at £33/tonne (an increase from £31/tonne). Nearly half
of the responses (small sample for this feedstock) were from Scotland and so not
necessarily representative of the whole of the UK.
◼ Contract gate fees given by operators are lower than those by local authorities, with
£45/tonne for food and £26/tonne for green waste. There is different regional
representation in the two samples which could be one reason for the difference, as policy
differences between Scotland and Wales, compared to England, mean there are
differences in gate fees particularly for separately collected food waste.
◼ The majority (72%) of local authorities sending waste to IVC facilities do so under contract
and are therefore likely to be reporting historic contract gate fees, which may explain why
there are some differences between gate fees cited by local authorities and the operators,
the latter reporting recently agreed municipal contract gate fees.
◼ Waste contractors also said they expect IVC gate fees to have remained somewhat stable
(in real terms i.e. in line with inflation), primarily due to the impact of long term contracts.
◼ Approximately 37% of authorities said their gate fees had changed in the last 12 months,
with 86% being increases, and the vast majority citing inflation/indexation as the reason.
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
◼ The median AD gate fee reported by local authorities for 2018 for the UK as a whole is
£27/tonne, which is slightly higher than the £26/tonne gate fee from last year’s survey.
Before this year’s reported gate fee, the figure had shown steady decline, since 2015.
However, the median of contracts which have started in the last three years is £19/tonne,
which reflect waste contractor expectations of declining gate fees more accurately.
◼ For England, the pattern over the last four years has been of steady decline (£35/tonne in
2015, £30/tonne in 2016, £26/tonne in 2017, to £23/tonne last year) until this year, where
data reported by local authorities results in a median of £26/tonne.
◼ The median gate fee of all waste streams reported by the operators is £10/tonne, which is
a £3/tonne increase on last year’s figure. It is much lower than the £27/tonne reported by
the local authorities, although this figure includes gate fees from contracts signed some
years ago. The lower figure reported by operators is likely to reflect gate fees charged at
the time of the survey ie. December 2018, and therefore better reflect the current market.
However, the operator survey was also dominated by respondents in England, where lower
gate fees are seen compared to Wales and Scotland.
◼ The median gate fee in Wales has reduced from last year’s £49/tonne to £41/tonne. Due
to a small sample size for Wales, it is more likely than an individual authority’s reported
gate fee has an impact on the overall result, and so the result is more sensitive to changes
7
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
year on year. Despite this decrease, Wales still has the highest gate fees, which is thought
to reflect the fact that a high proportion of the contracts in Wales are long-term PFI
contracts.
◼ The market continues to be fragmented, affected by local competition and national
legislation and policy. For example for in Scotland, food waste collections are mandated in
the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 and in Wales, food waste tonnages are boosted
through the Collections Blueprint, creating greater demand for food waste treatment
capacity, compared to England where separate food waste collections are currently not
mandatory. Market perception is very much impacted by what is happening in the markets
in London and the south east, where gate fees are under extreme pressure. Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as northern England, represent stronger markets with
higher typical gate fees, which are reflected in the overall medians generated by this
survey.
Energy from Waste facilities (EfW)
◼ This year the reported median gate fee for incineration with energy recovery (EfW) is
£89/tonne compared to £86/tonne last year. For pre-2000 EfW facilities, the median gate
fee is £65/tonne, compared to £57/tonne last year. For post-2000 facilities, median gate
fee is £93/tonne compared, compared to £89/tonne last year.
◼ Of the authorities responding to the question, 65% said their gate fee had changed in
2018. Most (93%) said this was due to an inflation increase or some other contractual
annual uplift, with others reporting a change due to negotiating a new contract or contract
extension.
Non-hazardous landfill
◼ The UK median landfill gate fee is £24/tonne, which is an increase compared to last year’s
of £20/tonne. Similar to last year, variability is getting larger, with a range of £2 to
£87/tonne). Landfill gate fees vary regionally, depending upon the availability of capacity
locally and of alternative options such as EfW or ports for RDF export.
◼ Local authorities and waste contractors expect to see increases in landfill gate fees in
future years as available landfill capacity reduces.
Detailed Summary
Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF)
◼ The median MRF gate fee (for MRF contracts which sort 4 materials or more) is £25/tonne
(based on 91 responses from local authorities), up from a median of £22/tonne last year.
◼ Only 12% of local authority respondents (i.e. 15) report not paying a gate fee for MRF
services i.e. a zero or negative gate fee, in comparison to 16% (14) last year, 20% (20) in
2016 and 28% (30) in 2015.
◼ The local authority gate fees reported include historic data (long term contracts) therefore
the median reflects a combination of the current market fees and fees inherited from
past years. For contracts signed in 2018, the median MRF gate fee has increased to
£35/tonne (18 reported contracts started in 2018). Contractor interviews report that new
contract gate fees could be as high as £45-55/tonne.
8
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
◼ Contracting data has shown that contract lengths have decreased over time, reducing the
contractor’s commodity pricing risk. The median contract length for 2018 signed contracts
is 2 years, compared to 6 years for contracts signed in 2014, and 19 years for contracted
started before 2014. Of all contracts reported, 49% were of 5 years duration or less.
◼ Of the 129 authorities supplying responses, 89 (69%) reported a change in gate fee in
2018 (64% in 2017), with 12 (19 in 2017) reporting a decrease (mostly due to new
contract negotiation or commodity price tracking) and 49 (39 in 2017) an increase in gate
fees (mostly due to indexation and commodity price tracking9), again suggesting some
hardening in gate fees between 2017 and 2018. Of those reporting a change in gate fee
and providing a reason, 9 (11%) report the signing of a new contract, 13 (15%) report fee
change as result of a regular contractual review, 31 (36%) changes in commodity prices
(with an additional 13 (15%) as part of a contractual monthly or quarterly review giving a
total of 51%), 5 (6%) a change in the level of contamination, and 25 (29%) contractual
RPI increases.
◼ The single price range with the most gate fees is £5 to £10/tonne (i.e. the mode,
compared to £0 to £5/tonne last year); the full range of responses was from -£41 to £97,
similar to last year. Reported gate fees are influenced by a wide range of factors including
material mix, contract length and age, contractual pricing mechanism, annual tonnage,
MRF technology employed, and the degree of risk share between the authority and
contractor.
◼ Analysing median gate fee and gate fee range per UK nation (plus London) shows Wales
and Northern Ireland experiencing higher median gate fees and minimum gate fees than
England, potentially due to relative market size. This corroborates trends seen in previous
years.
◼ The key driver in MRF gate fees, as evidenced in the last 3 to 4 years of gate fee surveys,
has been variability in the value of recyclates, and the need for contractors to reduce their
exposure to this risk. For instance, in 2017 some materials showed annual price
increases10, such as +63% for mixed cans and +25% for plastic bottles from 2016 lows,
with plastics and card showing decreases over the same period. In 2018, the impact of
the China Sword initiative pushed reductions in price particularly for fibres (e.g. card -
24%) and plastics (e.g. mixed plastics -36%). This unpredictable variability has increased
the number of contracts which exercise some form of price review mechanism (in some
cases as often as weekly or monthly) based upon a basket of commodity materials pricing.
For instance, in 2018, 51% of reported contracts included such a mechanism, compared to
37% in 2017 and 29% in 2016.
◼ Of the 117 respondents expressing an opinion, 97 (83% v 84% last year) expect gate fees
to increase in the future. Of factors which local authorities report as influencing MRF gate
fees, commodity prices, input material quality and operating costs, in rank order, are
9 Note that, depending upon when contracts were signed at the value of the applied commodity material basket at that time, gate fee adjustments to compensate for basket value fluctuation can result in both gate fee increases or reductions.
10 Based upon WRAP Materials Pricing Report; 2017 variations are based on the difference between prices first week Dec 2016 and first week Dec 2017; 2018 based upon the difference between the first week Dec 2017 and first week Dec 2018.
9
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
deemed those having most impact on gate fees now and in the future, the same as in last
year’s survey.
◼ Interviews with contractors this year confirmed a number of factors evident from the
survey results:
o That gate fees to local authorities in general are continuing to increase;
o The market is moving much more to a fixed gate fee plus commodity price
adjustments to minimise the risk to the operator;
o That contracting is getting more sophisticated with a trend to separate MRF
processing and commodity sales requirements managed in separate contracts;
o That the market is moving much more to price review on a monthly, 3 monthly
or 6 monthly basis to take into account fluctuations in commodity prices;
o That contamination is a particular issue and contracted contamination limits are
reducing as operators try to secure new markets and prices for the recyclates
they generate.
Table 2: Summary of MRF gate fees reported by local authorities by nation (and London)
(2018) (£/tonne)
In-Vessel Composting (IVC)
◼ The median across all types of municipal feedstock being sent to IVC facilities is
£46/tonne, which is the same as was reported last year. Operators cited a similar contract
gate fee for municipal mixed food and green waste of £48/tonne.
◼ The median gate fee for mixed food and green waste for the UK, the most common
feedstock type sent to IVC facilities, has increased by £1/tonne since last year, to
£50/tonne compared to £49/tonne. Separately collected food waste is the most expensive
at £61/tonne (same as last year), and green waste the least expensive at and £33/tonne
(also increased from £31/tonne), with differences likely reflecting the additional ABPI
requirements of composting food waste, such as contamination removal before shredding,
prevention of cross-contamination between ABPI clean and dirty areas, and high
temperature composting requirements. However, the sample size for the separately
collected food waste in particular is small, and three of the seven authorities responding
were from Scotland. For food waste the operators survey median was £45/tonne, which is
significantly lower than that cited by local authorities which was £61/tonne. Regional
differences in policy and legislation impact the market for food waste. For example in
Country/Region Median Mode Range Number of gate fees
UK £25 £5 to £10 -£41 to £97 91
England (incl.
London) £17 £0 to £5 -£41 to £82 63
London £18 £5 to £10 -£2 to £38 11
Wales £49 £80 to
£85 -£2 to £81 7
Northern Ireland £39 £35 to
£40 £32 to £70 12
10
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Scotland, food waste collections are mandated in the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012
and in Wales, food waste tonnages are boosted through the Collections Blueprint, creating
greater demand for food waste treatment capacity, compared to England where separate
food waste collections are currently not mandatory. Therefore the gate fees seen for
separately collected food waste are different between the nations.
◼ It should be noted that of operators who completed the survey, nine out of the ten were
from England, and therefore are likely to report lower gate fees than the local authorities
where there is more of a mix of regional representation.
◼ Operators gave a slightly lower figure for green waste at £26/tonne, compared to the
£33/tonne cited by local authorities.
◼ The discrepancy between separately collected food and green waste gate fees specified by
local authorities and operators may be due to local authorities reporting contract gate fees
which have been agreed a number of years ago. The analysis shows that 72% of the
authorities report sending material to an IVC facility under a contract. Median gate fees
for contracts started in 2018 were reported at £46/tonne, compared to £45/tonne last year
and £38/tonne for those started in 2016.
◼ Approximately 37% of authorities said their gate fees had changed in the last 12 months,
with 86% being increases, and the vast majority citing inflation/indexation as the reason.
◼ The waste contractor interviews suggested that IVC gate fees have remained somewhat
stable (i.e. in line with inflation) as mainly their operation is based on long term municipal
contracts. This does align with responses from local authorities and the only slight
increases in median gate fees for mixed food and green waste and separate green waste.
However, it should be noted that in this year’s data, 23 new contracts have been signed in
the last 3 years and 57% of reported contracts have a term of five years or less, which
suggests there is more turnover in the market than these operator interviews indicate.
Table 3: IVC gate fees provided by local authorities by waste material type (£/tonne)
Waste Type Median Mode Range Responses
All materials
(UK) £46 £55 to £60 £10 to £73 52
Mixed food &
green waste £50 £50 to £55 £28 to £67 28
Food waste
only £61 £60 to £65 £30 to £73 7
Green waste
only £33 £40 to £45 £20 to £64 15
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
◼ The median AD gate fee for 2017 is £27/tonne, which is slightly higher than the £26/gate
fee in last year’s survey. The range is exactly the same as last year, with six local
11
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
authorities citing an income or £0/tonne gate fee for their food waste (twice more than the
three reporting last year).
◼ For England, the pattern over the last four years has been of steady decline (£35/tonne in
2014/15, £30/tonne in 2015/16, £26/tonne in 2016/17, to £23/tonne last year) until this
year, where data reported by local authorities results in a median of £26/tonne. The range
has remained the same since last year (-£5 to £68/tonne). The modal range is £15 to
£10/tonne and so the median does not fall within range, indicating variability.
◼ The median gate fee in London has increased by £1/tonne since last year, at £27/tonne.
This figure is based on eight gate fees from six local authorities. Information from waste
contractors suggests that this does not reflect the current market in London, or at least not
the more recent contracts. Only one of the contracts reported started in 2018, with a few
of the others reported as having started in the last decade, and therefore this could be a
reason the median does not reflect the market as seen by the industry. It should be noted
that there is significant variability, i.e. gate fees as low as £0/tonne and some as high as
£68/tonne.
◼ The median gate fee in Wales has reduced from last year’s £49/tonne to £41/tonne. The
range has shifted upwards slightly from £14 to £62/tonne last year, to £19 to £64/tonne
this year. One authority has made a significant saving since last year by changing
contract, and as Wales is a relatively small sample size, it is likely that this saving has
influenced the overall median figure. Despite this decrease, Wales still has the highest
gate fees, which is thought to reflect the fact that a high proportion of the contracts in
Wales are long-term PFI contracts.
◼ Although there was insufficient data to be able to report figures, for the first time this year,
an authority in Northern Ireland reported as sending separately collected food waste to
AD.
◼ The median figures of contracts which have started in each of the last three years have
been £20/tonne or below. Combining the last three years (sample size of 18 authorities),
the overall median is £19/tonne, with a range of -£5 to £50/tonne, and a modal range of
£0 to £5/tonne, which reflect waste contractor expectations of gate fees more accurately.
◼ The median gate fee of all waste streams reported by the operators is £10/tonne, which is
a £3/tonne increase on last year’s figure. It is much lower than the £27/tonne reported by
the local authorities, although this figure includes gate fees from contracts signed some
years ago. The operator survey was also dominated by respondents in England, where
lower gate fees are seen compared to Wales and Scotland.
◼ As first identified two years ago, market over-capacity (or lack of capture of available
unavoidable food waste as feedstock) in various parts of the UK is driving gate fees down
to an unsustainable level. for AD operators. The slight increase in gate fees reported by
local authorities is not reflected from the interviews with waste contractors, however they
also did not report further decreases.
◼ The waste company interviews reported that market continues to be fragmented, affected
by local competition and legislation (which affects supply). With most large waste
companies and AD sector membership organisations run from London, it seems that the
overall perception of the AD market is dominated by what is happening in the markets in
London and the south east, where gate fees are under extreme pressure. Scotland, Wales
12
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
and Northern Ireland, as well as northern England, represent stronger markets with higher
typical gate fees, which are reflected in the overall medians generated by this survey.
Table 4: Summary of Anaerobic Digestion facility gate fees reported by local authorities
(£/tonne) by nation (and London)
Median Mode Range Responses
UK (all gate fees) £27 £15 to £20 -£5 to £68 62
UK (contracts
started between
2016 - 2018)
£19 £0 to £5 -£5 to £50 18
England (incl.
London) £26 £15 to £20 -£5 to £68 43
Wales £41 £15 to £20 £19 to £64 10
Northern Ireland Insufficient
data
Insufficient
data
Insufficient
data 1
London £27 £25 to £30 £0 to £68 8
Energy from Waste facilities (EfW)
◼ As in previous years, results are reported for the UK as a whole, segregating results for
facilities built before and after 2000.
◼ This year, the overall median gate fee reported by local authorities for EfW (incineration
with energy recovery) is £89/tonne compared to £86/tonne last year.
◼ For pre-2000 EfW facilities, the median gate fee is £65/tonne, compared to £57/tonne last
year. For post-2000 facilities, median gate fee is £93/tonne, compared to £89/tonne last
year. The difference between pre- and post-2000 facility gate fees is thought due to the
difference in the original construction cost of facilities, particularly taking environmental
controls into account, as well as the prevailing market conditions at the time contracts
were signed.
◼ Of the authorities responding to the question, 65% said their gate fee had changed in
2018. Of those that reported a reason for this change, most (93%) said this was due to an
inflation increase or some other contractual annual uplift, with others reporting a change
due to negotiating a new contract or contract extension.
◼ Based upon the responses to this survey, in the period 2013 to 2018, a total of 41 new
contracts are reported to have started. For these contracts signed over the 5 year period,
median gate fees show that for pre 2000 facilities, new contracts were being signed at
gate fees significantly above the overall median gate fee for 2018 (£85/tonne compared to
the overall median of £65/tonne) and more in line with market (and post-2000) gate fees.
For post-2000 facilities, new contracts between 2013 and 2018 were being signed with
gate fees slightly lower than the overall median gate fee for 2018 (£87/tonne compared to
the overall median of £92/tonne). It is not clear from the data supplied, why this should be
the case. . Note in terms of contract lengths, most of the post-2000 facility new contracts
filled all or most of the capacity for newly built facilities (i.e. anchor contracts), and
therefore average at 25 years. For new contracts for pre-2000 facilities, these are renewed
13
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
or replacement contracts for existing long-established facilities, reflected in a much shorter
median contract term of 7 years.
◼ The range in reported gate fees is broad at £44 to £125 (£85-90 mode range). This is
because there is a significant range of contractual and funding factors which can have an
influence on gate fee charged including mode of financing (PFI/PPP or prudential
borrowing), whether the asset reverts to the local authority or not, contract length, and
whether the authority made a capital contribution. Operators reported that contracts are
getting more sophisticated and applying a unique set of contractual and funding factors,
therefore making it difficult to compare individual gate fee figures.
◼ Discussions with the waste management companies confirmed the figures generated by
the survey, and that the main impact on local authority gate fees now all of the local
authority dedicated PFI capacity has been delivered, will be contracted inflation increases.
For new contracts in the future, the likely factors influencing gate fees will be the
propensity of merchant EfW capacity (there are some active projects coming through), the
availability of landfill (which will drive local disposal gate fees) and the impact on RDF
exports post Brexit. It is thought the low value of Sterling and possible reduction in the
availability of cheap back-haul transport to Europe post Brexit will impact the availability of
European free capacity as an option, could push up RDF pricing and potentially UK EfW
spot and new contract gate fees. Although it has been suggested that Dutch operators are
looking east for future material, and are taking smaller packages of waste to de-risk, UK
contractors explain that most want to keep communication open for if they need additional
waste for capacity drops in the future.
Table 5: Summary of Energy from Waste (Incineration with energy recovery) gate fees
reported by local authorities 2018 (£/tonne)
Type of
facility
Median Mode Range Responses
All £89 £85 to £90 £44 to £125 68
Pre-year
2000
All responses £65 £65 to £70 £44 to £89 20
With contracts £66 £65 to £70 £44 to £89 16
Without
contracts £54 £45 to £50 £47 to £81 4
Post-
year
2000
All responses £93 £85 to £90 £50 to £121 45
With contracts £92 £85 to £90 £50 to £121 42
Without
contracts £93 £90 to £95 £92 to £110 3
Non-hazardous landfill
◼ Across the UK the median landfill gate fee reported by local authorities is £24/tonne,
ranging from £2 to £87/tonne, and mode of £25 to £30/tonne. This is an increase on last
year’s median of £20/tonne. However, variability of the gate fees around this median is
getting larger, which is mirrored by the fact the median does not fall within the modal
range.
14
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
◼ From the data collected, it would suggest that both Wales and Northern Ireland’s gate fees
have dropped since last year. In the case of Wales, a significant decrease from £32 last
year to £19/tonne this year has been reported. For Northern Ireland the median has
decreased from £13 to £9/tonne. However, in both cases, the range is identical to last
year’s results, and given that both sample sizes are relatively small (in comparison with
England for example), it is likely that the reported changes are more a reflection of the
authorities that have responded and which happens to fall as the ‘median’, which is the
key average figure reported in the annual gate fee report, rather than being a reflection of
changes in the market.
◼ Gate fees in England have increased slightly from £22 to £24/tonne, and the range of gate
fees has decreased since last year, from £2-£50 to £5-£44/tonne. There are regional
differences in England. Similar to last year, the lowest gate fees are seen in the East of
England at £10/tonne (which is a slight decrease since last year at £13/tonne) and the
highest in the North West, which has increased by £1/tonne since last year to £30/tonne.
◼ Local authorities and waste contractors expect to see increases in landfill gate fees, due to
an increasing lack of available capacity.
Table 6: Summary of landfill gate fees reported by local authorities by nation (£/tonne)
Median Mode Range Responses Median 2017
UK (including
£88.95 landfill tax,
2018/19 tax year)
£113 £114 to
£119
£91 to
£176 76 £107
UK (excluding
landfill tax) £24 £25 to £30 £2 to £87 76 £20
England (incl.
London) £24 £25 to £30 £5 to £44 48 £22
Wales £19 £15 to £20 £2 to £48 7 £32
Northern Ireland £9 £5 to £10 £8 to £52 5 £13
15
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
employed, and the degree of risk share between the authority and contractor.
Of those local authorities reporting gate fees, 69% (last year 64%) report a change in gate
fee during 2018. In addition, 33% of respondents report receiving revenue directly associated
with the sale of materials sorted by the MRF. This income has been taken into account in the
calculation of the reported median (and mode)gate fees.
Regarding input specification, 70% of respondents reported contamination limits of between
5% and 30% by weight, with most between 5% and 10% (median 10%).
Analysing median gate fee and gate fee range per UK nation (plus London) shows Wales and
Northern Ireland experiencing higher median gate fees and minimum gate fees than England,
potentially due to relative market size. This corroborates trends seen in previous years.
Median gate fee and range per nation are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: MRF gate fees reported by local authorities by nation and London (2018 in
£/tonne)
To this end, gate fees in England only were increased compared to last year at £17/tonne
(£13/tonne last year), whereas reductions were noted in Wales at £49/tonne (£52/tonne last
year) and Northern Ireland £39/tonne (£43/tonne last year).
Low response rates in some regions mean that direct comparisons between English regions
are difficult. The data collected does show peaks in gate fee in the South East in particular,
with median gate fee in London decreasing significantly from last year (£18 from 11 responses
29
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
v. £43 from 8 responses last year). Median gate fees and ranges per English region are shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4: MRF gate fees reported by local authorities by English region (2018 in £/tonne)
4.1.2 Gate fee by contract year
Of the 137 responses received, 119 (87%) report being under contract for MRF services,
similar to last year. The data received from local authorities includes a considerable amount of
historic (long term contract) data which does not necessarily reflect current market conditions.
Median gate fees were therefore determined for each contract start year, from which trends
could be identified. This shows an increasing trend in median gate fees for each contract start
year from 2014. New contracts reported this year had a median gate fee of £35 (from 18
contracts). Contract length also shows a considerable decrease depending upon the year the
contract started, from 19 years for contracts signed before 2014, to 2 years for contracts
started in 2018. Results are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13: MRF gate fee reported by local authorities by contract start year (2014 to 2018,
from 2018 data £/tonne)
Contract start year Median Mode Range
No of
contracts
started
Median
contract
length
2018 £35 35-40 -3 - 60 18 2
2017 £23 No mode11 -18 - 60 7 2
2016 £36 45-50 -10 - 70 24 3
11 i.e. no gate fee range attracted more responses than any other
30
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
2015 £9 5-10 -10 - 82 8 5
2014 £8 5-10 -6 - 40 11 6
Before 2014 £24 5-10 -5 - 51 37 19
Of the 129 authorities supplying responses to this question, 89 (69%) reported a change in
gate fee in 2018 (64% in 2017), with 12 (19 in 2017) reporting a decrease (mostly due to new
contract negotiation or commodity price tracking) and 49 (39 in 2017) an increase in gate fees
(mostly due to indexation and commodity price tracking), again suggesting an increase in
gate fees between 2017 and 2018. Of those reporting a change in gate fee and providing a
reason, 9 (11%) report the signing of a new contract12, 13 (15%) report fee change as result
of a regular contractual review, 31 (36%) changes in commodity prices (with an additional 13
(15%) as part of a contractual monthly or quarterly review giving a total of 51%), 5 (6%) a
change in the level of contamination, and 25 (29%) contractual RPI increases. These results
are summarised in Table 14.
Table 14: Changes in MRF gate fees reported by local authorities in 2018 with reasons
4.1.3 Contract review
Reported contract length covers a wide range, although almost half (49% of responses) are
short term, i.e. 5 years or less, with 25% between 6 and 10 years. These are very similar
results to those obtained in 2017. Nevertheless, there are some long-term contracts reported
with 18% of responses giving contract lengths over 20 years.
12 Not all of the local authorities reporting a new contract responded to this question, hence the difference in new contract figures between table 13 and table 14
Change in Gate Fee
in 2018 Responses Reason Responses
Yes 89 (69%)
New contract 9 (11%)
Contract review 13 (15%)
Commodity Price Change 31 (36%)
Change in level of
contamination 5 (6%)
Regular contractual price
review (monthly or
quarterly)
13 (15%)
RPI 25 (29%)
No 40 (31%)
Total 129 85
31
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Table 15: MRF contract length
(2018)Contract length (years) Count Proportion of count
1 7 6%
2 14 12%
3 22 19%
4 6 5%
5 7 6%
6 6 5%
7 8 7%
8 4 4%
9 1 1%
10 9 8%
12 1 1%
14 2 2%
15 3 3%
18 1 1%
19 1 1%
20 2 2%
23 1 1%
24 2 2%
25 12 11%
>25 5 4%
Note: percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
4.1.4 Materials collected and sorted
Respondents reported the materials collected and sent to MRFs for sorting. Almost all report
the collection of key recyclates such as cans, plastic bottles, card and paper. This mirrors the
results obtained in last year’s survey. Of those responding, 70% report collecting glass in their
comingled collections. These results are summarised in Table 16.
The key driver in MRF gate fees, as evidenced in the last 3 to 4 years of gate fee surveys, has
been variability in the value of recyclates, and the need for contractors to reduce their
exposure to this risk. For instance, in 2017 some materials showed annual price increases,
such as +63% for mixed cans and +25% for plastic bottles from 2016 lows, with plastics and
card showing decreases over the same period. In 2018, the impact of the China Sword
initiative pushed reductions in price particularly for fibres (e.g. card -24%) and plastics (e.g.
mixed plastics -36%). This unpredictable variability has increased the number of contracts
which exercise some form of price review mechanism (in some cases as often as weekly or
monthly) based upon a basket of commodity materials pricing. For instance, in 2018, 51% of
reported contracts included such a mechanism, compared to 37% in 2017 and 29% in 2016.
32
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Table 16: Range and frequency of materials being sorted at MRFs reported by local
authorities in 2018, with material prices changes in December 2018 per key recyclate
material (as %)
Material Number of times
material is cited as
part of MRF gate
fee
% of
responses
Materials
price change
20181
Cans 91 99% -14%2
Plastic bottles 88 96% +7%3
Card (exc. drinks cartons) 83 90% -23%4
Paper 82 89% -3%5
Aerosols 77 84%
Drinks cartons e.g. Tetrapak 74 80%
Plastic: non-bottle rigids 66 72% 0%7
Foil 65 71%
Glass 64 70% 0%6
Plastic other 29 32% -36%8
Plastic film 27 29% -23%9
Other 9 10% Key:
1 source of data: WRAP Materials Pricing Report, comparing
first week Dec 2017 to first week Dec 2018
2 As mixed cans
3 As clear PET
4 As mixed paper & board
5 As News & PAMS
6 As clear glass
7 As mixed rigids
8 As mixed polymers
9 As LDPE film
Plotting WRAP sourced key recyclate prices from January 2016 to December 2018 (as in Figure 5) illustrates a variety of changes, with significant changes, for instance, in the price of card over this period.
Figure 5: Selling prices of key recyclates January 2016 to December 2018 (where January
costs and availability of capacity as having the most impact on current and future gate fees;
similar to last year’s responses. Responses are summarised in Table 37 and Table 38.
Of the 80 respondents providing an opinion, 68 (85%, 73% last year) expected gate fees to
increase in the future, only 6% expected a reduction.
Table 37: Key influencing factors – current energy recovery gate fees 2018 (indicated by local
authority survey – 63 responses)
Influencing factor No of responses %
Inflation (RPI, RPIX) 40 63%
Availability of capacity 32 51%
Operating costs 28 44%
Competition between similar facilities 16 25%
Legislative requirements 16 25%
Contractual changes, other than inflation increase 15 24%
Investment/capital costs 15 24%
Other 12 19%
Cost of landfilling residues 10 16%
57
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Product/commodity end market prices 10 16%
Competition from alternative treatment options 8 13%
Competition from foreign incinerators 5 8%
Government incentive schemes e.g. renewables 4 6%
Quality of input materials 3 5%
Cost of recycling residues 2 3%
Table 38: Key influencing factors – future energy recovery gate fees 2018 (indicated by local
authority survey – 65 responses)
Influencing factor No of responses %
Availability of capacity 35 54%
Inflation (RPI, RPIX) 30 46%
Legislative requirements 28 43%
Competition between similar facilities 25 38%
Operating costs 25 38%
Competition from alternative treatment options 16 25%
Investment/capital costs 11 17%
Product/commodity end market prices 10 15%
Government incentive schemes e.g. renewables 8 12%
Quality of input materials 8 12%
Other 8 12%
Contractual changes, other than inflation increase 7 11%
Cost of landfilling residues 7 11%
Cost of recycling residues 5 8%
Competition from foreign incinerators 4 6%
4.4.4 Waste contractor interviews
Discussions with the waste management companies confirmed the figures generated by the
survey, and that the main impact on local authority gate fees now all of the local authority
dedicated PFI capacity has been delivered, will be contracted inflation increases.
For new contracts in the future, the likely factors influencing gate fees will be the propensity of
merchant EfW capacity (there are some active projects coming through), the availability of
landfill (which will drive local disposal gate fees) and the impact on RDF exports post Brexit. It is
thought the low value of Sterling and possible reduction in the availability of cheap back-haul
transport to Europe post Brexit will impact the availability of European free capacity as an option,
could push up RDF pricing and potentially UK EfW spot and new contract gate fees. Although it
has been suggested that Dutch operators are looking east for future material, and are taking
58
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
smaller packages of waste to de-risk, UK contractors explain that most want to keep
communication open for if they need additional waste for capacity drops in the future.
4.5 Non-hazardous landfill
A total of 125 responses from 90 local authorities, 9 were rejected due to inclusion of transport
costs or being outliers. Of the 116 acceptable responses, 76 included usable gate fees which are
included in the analysis.
Of the responses which did not include gate fees, 18 said the gate fee was part of an integrated
contract, 10 were contractually obliged to not share gate fees, 2 said the contractor said the gate
fees should be regarded as confidential, and 6 provided various other reasons such as that the
contract was managed by the disposal authority.
4.5.1 Current gate fees and trends
The UK median landfill gate fee is £24/tonne, ranging from £2 to £87/tonne, and mode £25 to
£30/tonne, excluding landfill tax (£88.95/tonne in 2018) and haulage costs. This is an increase
compared to last year’s median (£20/tonne). Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.
shows that gate fees have remained relatively stable over the survey period. However, variability
of the gate fees around this mean is getting larger, which is mirrored by the fact that the median
does not fall within the modal range, and the general trend appears to be up.
Figure 12: Landfill gate fees reported by local authorities over the time for the whole UK
(£/tonne)
Table 39 shows the breakdown of gate fees by nation as well as per region within England.
59
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Table 39: Landfill gate fees reported by local authorities, broken down by nations and regions
within England (£/tonne)
Median Mode Range Responses Median 2017
UK (including
£88.95 landfill tax,
2018/19 tax year)
£113 £114 to £119 £91 to £176 76 £107*
UK (excluding
landfill tax) £24 £25 to £30 £2 to £87 76 £20
England £24 £25 to £30 £5 to £44 48 £22
London Insufficient
data Insufficient data
Insufficient
data 2
Insufficient
data
South East £23 £20 to £25 £12 to £29 9 £20
South West £28 £25 to £30 £10 to £39 14 £24
East of England £10 £5 to £10 £5 to £33 5 £13
East Midlands £22 £20 to £25 £11 to £28 4 £21
West Midlands £17 £15 to £20 £13 to £32 5 £24
North West £30 £40 to £45 £20 to £44 5 £29
North East £26 £25 to £30 Insufficient
data 3 £25
Yorkshire &
Humber
Insufficient
data
Insufficient data Insufficient
data 1 £13
Wales £19 £15 to £20 £2 to £48 7 £32
Northern Ireland £9 £5 to £10 £8 to £52 5 £13
Note: includes 2017/18 landfill tax value of £88.95/tonne
Figure 13 shows that gate fees are highest in England and lowest in Northern Ireland. Gate fees
in England have increased slightly from £22 to £24/tonne, and the range of gate fees has
decreased since last year, from £2 to £50 to £5 to £44/tonne.
Similar to last year, the lowest gate fees in England are seen in the East of England at £10/tonne
(which is a slight decrease since last year at £13/tonne) and the highest in the North West, which
has increased by £1/tonne since last year to £30/tonne (see Table 39).
From the data collected, it would suggest that both Wales and Northern Ireland’s gate fees have
dropped since last year. In the case of Wales, a significant decrease from £32 last year to
£19/tonne this year has been reported. For Northern Ireland the median has decreased from
£13 to £9/tonne. However, in both cases, the range is identical to last year’s results, and given
60
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
that both sample sizes are relatively small (in comparison with England for example), it is likely
that the reported changes are more a reflection of the authorities that have responded and which
happens to fall as the ‘median’, which is the key average figure reported in the annual gate fee
report, rather than being a reflection of changes in the market.
Just under half the authorities reported that gate fees (not including landfill tax increases) had
changed since last year, with all but one authority out of those that provided figures, citing
increases. The majority were related to inflation.
Figure 13: Landfill gate fees over time reported by local authorities by nation (£/tonne)
62
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
4.5.2 Contract review
Of those authorities sending material to landfill, 77% (72% last year) did so under a contract,
while 17% (19% last year) said they were not using a contract at present. The balance of
authorities did not provide a response.
Of those under contract, 76 provided start and end dates which has allowed for calculation of
the contract length. Table 40 demonstrates that a third of the contracts are for six years or
less, just over half (51%) are 14 years or less, and 36% of the contracts are for 25 years or
over.
Table 40: Landfill contract lengths (for which contract length data was submitted)
Contract Length (years) Number of contracts
No. %
1 2 3%
2 5 7%
3 6 8%
4 7 9%
5 3 4%
6 2 3%
7 8 11%
8 1 1%
10 2 3%
11 1 1%
14 2 3%
15 4 5%
16 3 4%
20 1 1%
23 2 3%
25 12 16%
>25 15 20%
Total 76 100%
Figure 14 shows that there seems to be a relationship between contract length and landfill
gate fees, with longer contracts having higher gate fees than shorter contracts. This may be
related to longer term contracts having an infrastructure investment element. Figure 15
shows that there is no clear relationship demonstrated by considering the year the contract
was started.
63
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Figure 14: Impact of landfill contract lengths on gate fees (£/tonne)
Figure 15: Impact of contract start date on gate fees (£/tonne)
4.5.3 Key influencing factors
Table 41 shows that that over half (54%) of the authorities thought that landfill tax was the
most influential factor on their existing gate fees. Legislative requirements ranked second,
compared to fourth last year, with 50% of the authorities feeling this was a key influence.
Availability of capacity dropped from second to third year at 44%, and operating costs and
inflation were both still within the top five as last year, each with over 30% of local authorities
naming these are key influences.
64
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
The factors identified by local authorities as being the most likely to influence gate fees in the
future (
Table 42) are ranked differently to those thought to have influenced for the last twelve
months. Availability of capacity and legislative requirements are considered the most
important (53%), followed by landfill tax (50%).
Table 41: Factors influencing current landfill gate fees (indicated by local authorities – 68
responses)
Factor influencing current gate
fees
Response Rates
No. %
Landfill tax 37 54%
Legislative requirements 34 50%
Availability of capacity 30 44%
Inflation (RPI, RPIX) 23 34%
Operating costs 21 31%
Competition from alternative
treatment options 18 26%
Competition between similar
facilities 6 9%
Contractual changes, other than
inflation increase 5 7%
Other 5 7%
Investment/capital costs 2 3%
Product/commodity end market
prices 2 3%
Quality of input materials 2 3%
Government incentive schemes
e.g. renewables 0 0%
Table 42: Factors most likely to influence future landfill gate fees (indicated by local
authorities – 70 responses)
Factor influencing future gate
fees
Response Rates
No. %
Availability of capacity 37 53%
Legislative requirements 37 53%
Landfill tax 35 50%
Competition from alternative
treatment options 25 36%
Operating costs 18 26%
65
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Factor influencing future gate
fees
Response Rates
No. %
Inflation (RPI, RPIX) 17 24%
Competition between similar
facilities 10 14%
Investment/capital costs 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Contractual changes, other than
inflation increase 2 3%
Government incentive schemes
e.g. renewables 2 3%
Quality of input materials 2 3%
Product/commodity end market
prices 0 0%
There is an increasing trend of authorities believing that landfill gate fees will increase, with
86% of authorities saying so (up from 81%, 80% and 76% the last three years). Only 3%
thought they would decrease (same as last year), with 12% saying they would remain the
same.
4.5.4 Waste contractor interviews
Discussions with waste contractors that operate landfills confirm the regional nature of the
market. There are multiple drivers which have an impact on landfill gate fees. For example,
whether there is sufficient capacity within a region, or competition from energy from waste
facilities, and what the strategy of the operator may be, i.e. whether they want to conserve
their capacity (maintain or increase gate fees) or fill their landfills as quickly as possible (lower
gate fees). Also, as landfills close, this presents the opportunity for remaining operators to
increase prices as remaining capacity becomes scarce.
The view generally was that landfill gate fees would start to increase (which agrees with the
local authority perspective), due to no new landfill infrastructure development and that
materials which are going to landfill are increasingly difficult to deal with, e.g. mattresses.
5.0 Recommendations for future surveys
It is recommended each year, that the results from the previous survey are reflected upon
prior to deciding the scope of next year’s survey in light of any recent legislation or policy, and
66
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
any other contextual changes. Currently, the survey captures the areas of most interest, and
in recent years has discounted open air windrow composting, mechanical biological treatment
(and other residual waste treatments) and wood waste outlets. However, with the Resource
and Waste Strategy having been launched at the end of last year, there could be outcomes
from the upcoming consultations, such as common approaches to recyclates and food waste
collections, which may need to be incorporated into the survey next year.
It should be noted in this review that changes in one sub-sector can impact other sub-sectors
e.g. potential overcapacity in AD capacity impacting on IVC gate fees, impact of RDF export
prices on landfill and EfW gate fees, so this should be taken into account when this selection
of target sub-sectors is made.
The questionnaires should be reviewed each year to ensure the questions are still relevant and
allow authorities and operators to provide pertinent information. They should also be
assessed as to whether they can be streamlined, to minimise the time required to for
respondees to maximise responses. For example, the material types being accepted into IVC
could be streamlined due to lack of responses for certain categories.
Response rates are slightly higher than last year, but not significantly. It shows that constant
chase up calls for the survey period, and engagement by organisations including CIWM, REA
and ADBA to actively promote the survey, are necessary to maintain levels but not necessarily
improve. The survey period was slightly longer this year, and completed before Christmas, as
per two years ago. Last year, the survey period spanned the Christmas period, and some
authorities said it clashed with other deadlines they had, such as their inputs for
WasteDataFlow, and does appear to coincide with a dip in responses.
Response rates from the organic operator surveys remains low, despite engagement with
ADBA and REA, who both promoted it. Engagement with waste operators proved less
successful this year. This may have been because of the publication of the Resource and
Waste Strategy at the end of last year, and the uncertainty about arrangements at the end of
March when the UK leaves the European Union. It is likely the people we sought were busy
with these other activities and unable to spare the time to comment on the results of the gate
fees survey this year.
67
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
Appendix 1 – Data Collection Methodology
Local authority survey
This year’s survey followed the format of the last five years’ surveys, in that it was conducted
using a web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire was constructed and designed by
Anthesis and hosted by the website Survey Monkey.
The online questionnaire was publicised to local authorities by an email containing a survey
link for each local authority contact. At least one email was sent to a specific contact at every
local authority in the UK. Where multiple contact details were available within an authority, the
survey was sent to each one. The survey was also publicised on WRAP’s website.
The covering email contained summary information about the gate fees survey in general, and
provided links to WRAP’s webpage for the previous year’s survey. As the summary report from
last year’s survey is available on WRAP’s website, a link to the relevant webpage was provided
for both of these reports rather than providing attachments in the email. The covering email
also confirmed the support of relevant organisations14; this support was extremely important
in demonstrating the credibility and importance of the survey.
The covering email was sent to all local authorities on 2nd November 2018. A second email
was then sent out to all contacts on the 19th November 2018 to remind them about the survey
and of the deadline. The deadline was extended by a few extra days (from 30th November
until 7th December 2019) and a third email was sent to inform those who had not already
responded.
Authority responses were monitored throughout the survey. Extensive phone calling was made
throughout the survey period to local authorities, to ensure they had received the invitation to
participate, to ask if the correct people had received it, and to establish whether they intended
or were able to complete the survey, by the required deadline. Local authorities were also
offered the chance to complete the survey over the phone with the Anthesis team member
making the calls. During the survey period a helpline and email address were made available
by Anthesis to answer questions and support local authority officers with filling in the
questionnaire.
Sampling strategy
14 Supporting organisations include: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (England), The Welsh Government, The Welsh Local Government Association, the Department for the Environment (Northern Ireland), LARAC, Resource London, the Organics Recycling Group (ORG) and the Anaerobic Digestion & Bioresources Association (ADBA).
68
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
The contact database for local authority officers was used to send emails to at least one
contact from each local authority. If a bounce-back email message was received, which
included details of a new officer, the contact list was updated and the email was re-sent. If no
new contact details were provided, attempts were made to try to identify updated contact
details (during the reminder phone calls) to which the questionnaire could be sent.
All local authorities in the UK were targeted. The intention was to maximise responses across
the board. However, there were some priority areas, to which chase up phones call were
given precedence. For example, London, partly due to the comparatively low number of
authorities, required a high response rate in order to produce accurate results. Wales was
also an area of particular interest. Phone calls were also concentrated on WDAs and Unitary
authorities, as these were considered the most likely to be able to complete the survey and
have most relevant data.
Questionnaire
A single questionnaire was used for capturing all data from local authorities. This
questionnaire included detailed questions covering all waste management services listed
within the survey scope (Section 0). Question logic was built into the survey so that if the
authority answered ‘no’ to using a specific service (e.g. a MRF or IVC) they then bypassed all
subsequent questions regarding that service type. In this manner the questionnaire was kept
relevant to the individual authority.
The online questionnaire that was developed by Anthesis for the 2015 survey was used as the
template, to which numerous alterations have been made over the years, for example removal
of MBT and wood waste reprocessing as requested by WRAP.
All questions relating to gate fees and changes in gate fees were open questions that required
the input of £/tonne values. Closed questions were restricted to the section that asked about
current and future factors influencing gate fees. This section provided a number of possible
options that respondents could select from a predefined list; however, respondents could also
select ‘other’, and add additional comments in a free text box if relevant factors were not
contained in the list.
Survey of organic waste treatment operators
The organic waste treatment operators’ survey followed the same approach as the local
authority survey, in that it was conducted using web-based questionnaires. A different
questionnaire was compiled for each of IVC and AD operators (wood waste reprocessors have
not been surveyed for the last few years). The questionnaires were constructed and designed
by Anthesis and hosted by market research website Survey Monkey.
The online questionnaires were publicised to organic waste treatment operators by a covering
email containing the relevant survey links depending on the contact and which treatment
69
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
technologies were relevant to them. Where multiple contact details were available within a
company the survey was sent to each one. The survey was also publicised on WRAP’s website.
The covering email contained summary information about the gate fees survey in general and
provided links to WRAP’s webpage for the previous years’ survey. As the summary report from
last year’s survey is now available on request via WRAP’s website, a link to the relevant
webpage was provided for both of these reports rather than providing attachments in the
email. The covering email also contained the logos of the supporting organisations.
The introductory email was sent to organic waste treatment operators on 12th November
2018. A second email was then sent out to all contacts on 26th November to remind them
about the survey. A third email was sent out on 30th November 2018 to operators that had
partially completed a survey or had not yet responded, and the survey deadline was extended
to the 7th December 2018 (from the initial date of the 30th November), to encourage further
responses.
Operator responses were monitored throughout the entire duration of the survey. Phone calls
were made throughout the survey period, to ensure they had received the invitation to
participate, to ask if the correct people had received it, and to establish whether they intended
or were able to complete the survey, by the required deadline. Operators were also offered
the chance to complete the survey over the phone with the Anthesis team member making
the calls. During the survey period a helpline and email address were made available by
Anthesis to answer questions and support local authority officers with filling in the
questionnaire.
For this year’s study a contact database for IVC and AD operators was updated from last year
using Anthesis’ contact details for relevant operators. A total of 236 emails were sent to
approximately 150 operators at the start of the survey period (some with multiple contacts).
Questionnaires
Individual questionnaires were devised for IVC and AD operators, based upon those devised
by Anthesis for last year’s survey. If an operator was known to have more than one type of
organic facility, multiple links were included within the emails sent to these contacts.
Waste management companies
A number of waste management companies, that have a range of technology types and
regional distribution, were identified. Key contacts within these companies were contacted to
see whether they would be willing to take part in either a telephone or face-to-face interview,
with a senior member of the Anthesis delivery team.
As was the case with previous years, it was anticipated that information gained from these
interviews would not necessarily be actual gate fee figures associated with particular facilities,
70
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
but, more likely, a range of gate fees and a market trend commentary. This information was
used to ‘sense check’ the information received from local authorities. The rationale was that
by not asking for gate fees for specific facilities, companies would be more willing to
participate, and would also engage in a discussion about relevant drivers in the market place.
The approach taken was to present a summary of the gate fees collected in the local authority
survey (median and regional differences) and ask the company representatives to confirm or
otherwise comment on them. General questions (rather than specific questions about gate
fees) were also asked about the local authority and commercial markets.
Data analysis and quality assurance
Whilst there is some data analysis functionality available through the website used to host the
online questionnaires it was insufficient for all the survey requirements. Consequently, the
data was exported into Microsoft Excel file format to facilitate detailed analysis and the
production of charts.
Data checking and cleansing
Once the data was exported it was checked for obvious errors, as well as less likely errors,
which required potential clarification with the respondents. This primarily involved senior
members of the team examining the data and highlighting potential errors using their
knowledge of the market.
Typical issues which were identified during this data checking and cleaning stage included for
example:
◼ Where £0/tonne gate fees were stated, checking with the authority these were valid and
that they hadn’t intended to leave blank;
◼ The same gate fee entered in both the including and excluding haulage fields; and
◼ Data which appeared to be outlying (either high or low) or illogical.
Such issues were identified within the data, checked with the supplying local authority by
phone or email and corrected prior to analysis of the data. In some cases, where responses
were not received and gate fees looked significantly out of step with others, they were
eliminated from the analysis.
Haulage costs
The key data for this survey are the gate fees charged at each type of facility (£/tonne). For
comparability reasons these must exclude all other costs which may be associated with the
management of a waste, e.g. collection, bulking, or haulage costs. For this reason, this survey
has differentiated between prices for ‘gate fees excluding transport’ and ‘gate fees including
transport’.
For comparison calculations, only gate fees excluding haulage have been used in the analysis
of data. Where responses had been received which included transport only, an estimate was
71
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options
made as to what the transport element of that gate fee was, so a gate fee excluding haulage
could be calculated. Authorities were asked, where possible, to provide gate fees both
including and excluding haulage. These were used to calculate an average ‘transport /tonne’
cost for each facility type and then removed from the gate fees which included haulage costs.
This enabled additional data points to be considered in the overall analysis. Due care was
taken to identify any calculated gate fees where transport costs were thought not be
accurately accounted for through this method and these were removed from the analysis.
PFI / integrated contracts
A number of local authorities, with existing PFI or integrated contracts, quoted gate fees
which were obviously not ‘gate fees’ for a specific treatment facility, but represented the
whole, or part of a payment for an integrated service. Comments provided within the survey
and further questioning of some of these authorities revealed that complex payment
mechanisms were in place for waste treatment and disposal, whereby the true cost of the
technology or technologies used was masked by the structure of the payment mechanism.
This issue is particularly marked under integrated contracts, where service fees may be paid to
operators covering a range of services.
Given the issues outlined above, all gate fees that were identified as being linked to complex
payment mechanisms, and that led to unusual gate fees being quoted, were excluded from
the dataset. Clear examples of this issue are when authorities quote the same gate fee for a
range of services.
Materials Recovery Facilities
MRF gate fees depend on the range of materials collected for sorting, and therefore to allow
for comparability, only gate fees provided which represented sorting of a typical mix of at
least four key materials were included in the overall analysis.
Data analysis limitations
In the analysis of the data collected, relevant sample sizes are reported. When examining data
in detail or comparing results per waste management service from this year to those obtained
from previous years, the size of the sample on which results are based needs to be
considered. This is particularly relevant when, for instance, comparing results for a particular
waste management type at national level, or comparing results between English regions,
where a small sample size per individual nation or region may make robust comparison
difficult. Where such issues arise, these are highlighted in the text.
72
WRAP – Comparing the costs of alternative waste treatment options