Final report
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
Report of FDF Members’ Survey of Food and Packaging Waste Arisings in 2012
Project code: MAR104-001 Research date: August 2013 – January 2014
Date: February 2014
WRAP’s vision is a world where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Document reference: WRAP, 2013, Town, FDF Members’ Waste Survey
Written by: Tecla Castella and Julian Parfitt
Front cover photography: TheReport Continuum Recycling sorting facility (Source: Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd) Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP] While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk
Executive summary This project was commissioned to collect data on food and packaging waste arisings from FDF members’ manufacturing sites in 2012. This was primarily in order to track progress towards FDF’s Five-fold Environmental Ambition target to send zero food and packaging waste to landfill by 2015 at the latest and to gain insight into food and packaging waste arisings at its members’ manufacturing sites across the UK. It builds on two previous surveys commissioned by FDF and Defra, and undertaken in 20081 and in 20102, which assessed the amount of food and packaging waste arising from such sites during 2006, 2008 and 2009. In the 2010 report, the three survey years were also compared to evaluate progress in waste management practices in the industry. Both the 2012 survey and the previous surveys were undertaken by Oakdene Hollins. This report is based on the responses to a survey distributed by FDF in August 2013. As with previous survey reports it aims to provide an updated snapshot of the amount and geographical distribution of food and packaging waste arising at FDF member sites and how this waste is being managed. Responses were received from 135 sites, which collectively generated 196,477 tonnes of food and packaging waste in 2012. However, details on how these wastes are managed were provided by only 84, which accounted for 138,836 tonnes of the total. Also, data were compared within a smaller sub-sample of 55 sites which provided data for all four survey years and were analysed, to identify trends. Of the 138,836 tonnes of waste produced at sites who responded with waste management information, only 4,214 tonnes (3%) was sent to landfill, with the remaining 97% being recovered in some way (Table A). This shows that FDF members are making good progress towards meeting the FDF zero food and packaging waste to landfill target. Mixed waste represented the majority of waste sent to landfill in 2012. Table A Total breakdown of waste management routes used by FDF member sites in 2012 Anaerobic Digestion
Composting
8%
4%
Recycling
Landspreading
Thermal treatment (with energy recovery)
Landfill
Total (tonnes)
28%
37%
19%
3%
138,836
Landspreading was the major management method in use in 2012, followed by recycling and thermal treatment with energy recovery. The latter represented the dominant route for mixed waste; this suggests that, although waste being landfilled has decreased since previous years, much of this is being diverted to thermal treatment with energy recovery rather than it undergoing better segregation to enable recycling, AD or composting. Recycling was also a significant management route especially for packaging with some 96% of such waste being managed this way. Finally, the amount of waste being sent to AD showed substantial uplift compared to previous surveys with 8% of total waste being managed in this way. The previous reports suggested that targeting waste segregation at source should be prioritised, to reduce the tonnage of mixed waste going to landfill. The latest survey data show that, although the amount of mixed waste generated has decreased slightly since 2008, much of this waste is being diverted from landfill to thermal treatment with energy 1
http://www.fdf.org.uk/publicgeneral/mapping_waste_in_the_food_industry.pdf
2
https://www.fdf.org.uk/corporate_pubs/waste_survey_2010.pdf
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
1
recovery. This implies that this waste is not being segregated and therefore there is still opportunity for increased segregation in order to enable more recycling of this waste. Analysis of the sub-sample of 55 sites providing data for all four years showed a strong decrease in the use of landfill, with an 80% reduction between 2006 and 2012 (Figure A). Another positive trend concerned recycling, which showed a 36% increase since 2008. Figure A Use of recovery/disposal routes (in tonnes) by FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 160,000 AD 140,000 Composting 120,000
Recycling
Other recycling
100,000
Landspreading 80,000 Thermal trtmt (with energy recovery)
60,000
Other recovery 40,000
Thermal trtmt (without energy recovery) Landfill
20,000
Other disposal 2006
2008
2009
2012
Further analysis was undertaken to examine how waste has changed in relation to levels of production. The results show that between 2008 and 2012 the ratio of waste to production may have decreased slightly. The table below summarises further opportunities for waste prevention and further improvements in waste management available to FDF members. Waste prevention opportunities Setting internal key performance indicators to encourage more waste prevention at sites Deeper applications of lean manufacturing principles
Waste management improvements Better waste segregation to eliminate landfill Increase the proportion of food waste going to AD
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
2
Contents 1.0
Introduction ................................................................................................. 6 1.1 FDF Five-Fold Ambition ............................................................................... 6 1.2 Previous reports ......................................................................................... 6 1.3 Survey methodology................................................................................... 7 2.0 Distribution of waste produced .................................................................... 8 2.1 Waste breakdown and recovery/disposal routes ............................................ 8 2.2 Amount of waste produced ......................................................................... 9 2.3 Total waste to landfill ................................................................................. 9 2.4 Landfill waste by type ............................................................................... 10 2.5 Anaerobic digestion .................................................................................. 10 2.6 Composting ............................................................................................. 11 2.7 Landspreading ......................................................................................... 11 2.8 Thermal treatment ................................................................................... 12 2.9 Disposal routes – summary ....................................................................... 12 2.10 Recovery/disposal routes for waste by country ........................................... 13 2.11 Packaging waste by type .......................................................................... 14 2.12 Mixed waste composition .......................................................................... 14 3.0 By-products and redistribution ................................................................... 15 4.0 Trends in waste arisings ............................................................................. 17 4.1 Trends in waste arisings ........................................................................... 17 4.2 Trends in waste arisings by type ............................................................... 18 4.3 Trends in waste management ................................................................... 19 4.4 Data limitations ........................................................................................ 21 5.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 22 Appendix I ............................................................................................................ 23 Figures Figure 1 Total waste generated per tonne of product from FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 ..................................................................................... 18 Figure 2 Use of recovery/disposal routes (in tonnes) by FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 ..................................................................................... 20 Figure 3 Total waste reported by region in 2012 (tonnes) .............................................. 23 Figure 4 Total waste reported by region and type in 2012 (tonnes) ................................. 24 Figure 5 Total waste reported sent to landfill in 2012, by region (tonnes) ........................ 25 Figure 6 Total waste reported sent to landfill by type in 2012, by region (tonnes) ............ 26 Figure 7 Total waste reported sent to AD in 2012 by region (tonnes) .............................. 27 Figure 8 Total waste reported sent to composting in 2012 by region (tonnes) .................. 28 Figure 9 Total waste reported sent to landspreading in 2012 by region (tonnes) .............. 29 Figure 10 Total waste reported sent to thermal treatment with energy recovery in 2012 by region (tonnes) ............................................................................................................ 30 Figure 11 Recovery/disposal routes for total waste reported by country in 2012 (tonnes) . 31 Figure 12 Total by-products and redistributed food reported in 2012 by region (tonnes)... 32 Tables Table A Total breakdown of waste management routes used by FDF member sites in 2012 1 Table 1 Total breakdown of recovery and disposal routes used by FDF member sites in 2012 .................................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2 Food and packaging waste arisings from FDF member sites by region, in 2012, ...... 9
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
3
Table 3 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landfill from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 .................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 4 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landfill from FDF member sites, by type, in 2012 10 Table 5 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to anaerobic digestion from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012............................................................................................................. 11 Table 6 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to composting from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landspreading from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 12 Table 8 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to thermal treatment with energy recovery from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 ................................................................................... 12 Table 9 Total breakdown of recovery and disposal routes used by FDF member sites, by country, in 2012 ........................................................................................................... 13 Table 10 Estimated percentage of packaging waste by type, in 2012 .............................. 14 Table 11 Estimated composition of mixed waste, in 2012 ............................................... 14 Table 12 Tonnes of by-products and redistributed food from FDF member sites in 2012 ... 15 Table 13 Tonnes of by-products and redistributed food from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 16 Table 14 Total production and waste arisings from FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 .......................................................................................... 17 Table 15 Waste arisings by type for FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 19 Table 16 Use of recovery/disposal routes (in tonnes) by FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 ..................................................................................... 19 Table 17 Management method (in tonnes) by waste type for FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 .............................................................................. 21
Glossary AD IVC FDF WFD WRAP
Anaerobic Digestion In Vessel Composting Food and Drink Federation Waste Framework Directive Waste & Resources Action Programme
Units
Conventional SI units and prefixes used throughout: {t, metric tonne, 1,000 kg}
About FDF The Food and Drink Federation is the voice of the UK food and drink industry, the largest manufacturing sector in the country. The sector directly employs up to 400,000 people and as many as 1.2 million ancillary services; it accounts for 16% of the UK’s total manufacturing sector by value; and it is an invaluable partner to British agriculture, buying two thirds of what farmers produce. FDF’s membership comprises manufacturers of all sizes as well as trade associations dealing with specific sectors of the industry. In representing the interests of its members, FDF focuses on the following core priorities: Food Safety and Science Health and Wellbeing Sustainability Competitiveness
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
4
6 Catherine Street, London WC2B5JJ Tel: 020 7420 7140 Email:
[email protected] Web: www.fdf.org.uk Twitter: @Foodanddrinkfed
Acknowledgements Oakdene Hollins would like to thank WRAP for funding the study. We would also like to thank the Food and Drink Federation for preparing and circulating the survey, and their members who took the time to complete the questionnaires and answer queries when they arose. In particular, thank you to David Bellamy and Peter Andrews at FDF, and Peter Whitehead at WRAP for their input and feedback on the report.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
5
1.0
Introduction
1.1 FDF Five-Fold Ambition In 2007, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) launched its Five-Fold Environmental Ambition, a commitment to improve the sector’s environmental performance. Five core ambitions were set by the FDF in order to drive change towards more sustainable practices. Working collectively, the current core aims of the FDF members are3: CO2 emissions: reduce CO2 emissions by 35% by 2020 against a 1990 baseline. Waste: achieve zero waste to landfill by 2015 at the latest and to make a significant contribution to WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment 3 target to reduce traditional grocery ingredient, product and packaging waste in the grocery supply chain by 3% by 2015 compared to a 2012 baseline. Packaging: make a significant contribution to WRAP's Courtauld 3 target to ensuring there is no increase in the carbon impact of packaging by 2015 from a 2012 baseline. Water: significantly reduce water use and contribute to an industry-wide target to reduce water use by 20% by 2020 compared to 2007. Transport: achieve fewer and friendlier food transport miles and contribute to the Logistics Carbon Reduction Scheme target to reduce the carbon intensity of freight operations by 8% by 2015 compared to 2010. This project was commissioned to collect data on food and packaging waste arisings from FDF members’ manufacturing sites across the UK in 2012, and to analyse its geographical distribution and the management routes utilised. The survey will help FDF track delivery of its Ambition to send zero food and packaging waste to landfill by 2015, and inform the ways in which the waste generated by its members is being managed. The report provides WRAP with a broader insight on waste reduction by food and drink manufacturers consistent with the work of the Courtauld Commitment. The survey follows on from two previous reports commissioned by FDF and Defra in 20084 and 20105. The same methodology was used to provide a snapshot of the level of food and packaging waste arising across FDF member sites during 2006, 2008 and 2009, its geographical distribution and management routes. 1.2 Previous reports The survey distributed by FDF in 2008 received responses from 236 sites. The analysis showed over 800,000 tonnes of food and packaging waste were generated across these sites. Analysis of 2006 data suggests that this total may have included by-products and food that was being sent either to charity or as an ingredient in animal feed, which should not be classified as waste. However, it is not possible to quantify to what extent this is the case from the data provided by manufacturers. Nearly 17% (137,766 tonnes) of the total waste reported was landfilled; the majority of waste landfilled was non-segregated, mixed food and packaging waste for which fewer recycling options were available. Recycling was the major route for packaging waste. The survey distributed by FDF in 2010 collected data for waste arisings in 2008 and 2009. Responses were received from 149 sites generating 481,000 tonnes of food and packaging waste in 2009. Of this, only 43,000 tonnes (9%) were sent to landfill, which was a significant 3
http://www.fdf.org.uk/environment_progress_report.aspx
4
http://www.fdf.org.uk/publicgeneral/mapping_waste_in_the_food_industry.pdf
5
https://www.fdf.org.uk/corporate_pubs/waste_survey_2010.pdf
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
6
improvement from both 2006 and 2008. As in 2006, the majority of waste being landfilled in both 2008 and 2009 was non-segregated, mixed waste. However, significant improvement was shown from 2008 to 2009 as the amounts of segregated food waste and packaging waste being landfilled were halved, whereas composting for food waste and recycling for packaging waste increased. Landspreading and recycling were the major management routes for food and packaging waste respectively. 1.3 Survey methodology The 2013 survey provides an updated snapshot of the level of food and packaging waste arising across FDF member manufacturing sites in 2012. Comparisons with data from previous surveys are also provided. A survey questionnaire was distributed to all FDF members in August 2013, requesting data on total food and drink production and waste generated by type and management method per UK manufacturing site in 2012. Data on by-products and food redistribution were also collected and broken down by destination. Finally, food manufacturers were asked to estimate the composition of the packaging waste arisings in terms of primary, secondary or tertiary packaging along with the composition of mixed waste being generated in terms of food waste and packaging waste. Member companies with a combined turnover of £10 billion responded, providing data in respect of 135 sites. This equates to about 13% of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry by value. Not all responding manufacturers provided site-level data and breakdown of waste by treatment method; therefore, the geographic analysis and that of management methods do not include all responding sites. The response rate for this latest survey has decreased somewhat compared to the first survey: from 236 responding sites in 2008, to 149 responding sites in 2011, down to 135 in the latest survey. FDF members who are signatories to WRAP’s Courtald Commitment also report their waste data annually to WRAP. Individual site waste data were aggregated into different geographic regions based on the postcode of each site. To avoid breaching commercial confidentiality, data for regions with a low number of responding sites were aggregated to form larger groupings. Due to the smaller number of responses compared to the 2008 and 2010 surveys, it was necessary to use larger regions, and the geographic areas were therefore not directly comparable to those from previous reports. A total of 10 regions were created. Data provided by manufacturers were analysed to determine the breakdown of waste into food, packaging and mixed waste, and how these wastes are treated. The data were also analysed to determine how food manufacturing waste is treated in different regions of the UK. Data on by-products and other streams by destination are also shown. The distributed survey also requested manufacturers to provide an estimate on the compositional breakdown of packaging waste into primary, secondary and tertiary packaging, and of mixed waste into food and packaging waste. This data was used to calculate the weighted average composition for both types of waste. In order to create a like for like comparison with the previous survey data, a sub-sample of sites which provided arisings data for each of the four years (2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012) was created and analysed. A total of 55 sites fitted this criterion. This comparison is presented in Section 4.0
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
7
2.0
Distribution of waste produced
2.1 Waste breakdown and recovery/disposal routes The survey questionnaire was distributed by FDF to its members in August 2013; 135 UK manufacturing sites responded providing data on food production, waste generation and management routes. The total food and packaging waste generated by these sites in 2012 was 196,477 tonnes. Table 1 gives a breakdown by waste type and management route for the waste arisings generated by the 84 sites that were able to provide this level of detail. The responding FDF members showed minimal utilisation of the lowest tier of the hierarchy, the ‘disposal’ options such as landfill and thermal treatment without energy recovery, which accounted for only 3% of the waste arising in 2012. The majority of landfilled waste was mixed food and packaging waste, with only 4 tonnes of food waste being treated by this method. This is an encouraging result and shows good progress towards the ambition of sending zero waste to landfill. Recovery routes represented the major management option for treating waste, with landspreading dominating. Recycling options also showed significant uptake, with 96% of packaging waste being managed this way. The figures in Table 1 also show thermal treatment with energy recovery is the dominant treatment method adopted for mixed waste and the third most significant management route overall. Composting and anaerobic digestion options accounted for 12% of the waste arisings. Table 1 Total breakdown of recovery and disposal routes used by FDF member sites in 2012 Management route
Food Waste6 (tonnes) 9,362
Packaging Waste7 (tonnes) -
Mixed Waste8 (tonnes) 1,186
Composting (IVC/Windrow)
6,049
-
Recycling Other recycling10
764 2,325
Landspreading Thermal treatment (with energy recovery) Other Recovery10 Thermal treatment (no energy recovery) Landfill Other Disposal10
Treatment Type AD
Recycle/ compost
Recovery
Disposal11
Total
6
Total9 (tonnes)
%
10,548
8%
-
6,049
4%
30,341 -
3,851 2,070
34,955 4,395
25% 3%
50,310
-
1,333
51,643
37%
9,067
398
16,882
26,347
19%
7
-
-
7
0%
-
-
238
238
0%
4 412 78,299
402 14 31,155
3,809 14 29,382
4,214 440 138,836
3% 0% -
This should represent the total food waste arisings which left via the backdoor of the factory including any inedible fraction but not food waste mixed with packaging
waste. It should not include by-products nor surpluses. 7 This should represent the total packaging waste arisings which left the backdoor of the factory, not mixed with non-packaging materials It should not include reusable packaging unless it had reached the end of its life nor packaging mixed with food waste. 8 This should represent the total mixed food & packaging waste arisings which left the backdoor of the factory comingled in a single skip. It should not include by-products nor surpluses. 9
This does not include waste from all sites as a number of respondents did not provide a breakdown by treatment or waste type
10
It should be noted that no information was provided regarding ‘other disposal’, ‘other recycling’ and ‘other recovery’ methods by survey respondents. These may simply
be misreported rather than represent a different treatment method. 11
Trade effluent disposed of via public sewer to a municipal waste water treatment plant was not included.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
8
2.2 Amount of waste produced Table 2 shows the breakdown of total food and packaging waste arisings from FDF member sites in 2012 by region; these figures are mapped in Figure 3 and a breakdown according to waste type is given in Figure 4. The total is lower than that shown in the previous section as a number of respondents did not provide information at the site level. Responding FDF member sites located in South East and East England produced the largest tonnage of waste, accounting for 35% of the total waste generated; over double the next largest region. It should be noted that sites in Northern Ireland and Wales have been aggregated in Table 2 to maintain confidentiality. Table 2 Food and packaging waste arisings from FDF member sites by region, in 2012, Region
Total waste arisings (tonnes)
South East and East England
41,082
Yorkshire and the Humber
19,720
North West England
16,062
South West England
12,481
East Midlands
6,327
Northern Ireland and Wales
5,786
West Midlands
5,767
North East England
4,551
London
2,511
Scotland
2,023
Total
116,311
2.3 Total waste to landfill Landfill is the least desirable management route for waste, according to the waste hierarchy. Sending food waste to landfill is especially damaging as methane, a greenhouse gas, is formed as the biodegradable matter decomposes. There is also the fact that landfilling food wastes all the resources that went into the production of that food. For these reasons, one of the FDF’s ‘Five-Fold Environmental Ambitions’ is to achieve zero waste to landfill by 2015. The Landfill Tax has been increased in recent years as a financial tool to drive waste away from landfill. In 2013 Landfill Tax reached £72 per tonne, making landfill a costly option. Therefore, diversion from landfill offers both a financial and an environmental benefit for food and drink manufacturers. Table 3 shows the waste sent to landfill by responding member sites aggregated by geographic region; this data is mapped in Figure 5. In 2012, 4,214 tonnes of waste - 3% of waste generated by the survey respondents - were sent to landfill. All regions reported sending waste to landfill in 2012, although some, like North East England, only deposited minimal amounts and are close to achieving the zero waste to landfill ambition. Scotland was the region sending the highest amount of waste to landfill, closely followed by the North West and South West of England. Although Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales generated 7% of total waste, they account for 35% of the waste being landfilled.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
9
Table 3 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landfill from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Region
Waste to landfill (tonnes)
Scotland
846
North West England
803
South West England
705
Northern Ireland and Wales
627
London
417
East Midlands
298
West Midlands
297
South East and East England
167
Yorkshire and the Humber
53
North East England
3
Total
4,214
2.4 Landfill waste by type This section examines the type of waste sent to landfill. Table 4 shows that only 4 tonnes of food waste generated were landfilled in 2012. Therefore, the vast majority of the survey respondents have achieved zero food waste to landfill. As can be seen, 90% of the waste being sent to landfill is mixed food and packaging waste. The regional breakdown of landfilled wastes given in Figure 6 also illustrates the dominance of mixed wastes. This calls for improvements in waste segregation at manufacturing sites to enable a larger proportion of these materials to be recovered. Manufacturers should aim to prevent the generation of such waste; where this is not possible, such waste should be segregated upon generation with recycling of packaging waste and anaerobic digestion of food waste being a first consideration. Where mixed wastes are still arising, thermal treatment with energy recovery should be considered as a better option than landfill. Table 4 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landfill from FDF member sites, by type, in 2012 Waste type
Food waste
Packaging waste
Mixed waste
Total
Amount (tonnes)
4
402
3,809
4,214
%
0%
10%
90%
-
2.5 Anaerobic digestion Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a biological process whereby micro-organisms breakdown decomposable matter in an oxygen-free environment. Methane gas is produced during this process; this is used to produce energy. AD is therefore an effective method to manage food waste whilst generating renewable energy. The remaining digestate can also be used as a fertiliser and soil conditioner if managed according to health and safety, and quality standards. Defra’s ‘Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy’ encourages the use of AD for managing food waste and states that this option is environmentally better than composting and other recovery methods.12 In 2012, 8% of the total waste generated was managed in this way, as shown in Table 5. These figures are mapped in Figure 7. This is a significant improvement compared to previous years. This number increases to14% if only food waste is considered. Almost all food managed by AD arises in South East and East England. This is followed by Yorkshire and the Humber and South West England; however, AD was used to a much lower extent in 12
Defra (2011), Guidance on applying the Waste Hierarchy
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
10
these areas. Currently, sites located in only five UK regions are using anaerobic digestion technology. This may be explained by the difference in available AD capacity in different regions of the UK. It should also be noted that these data cover only a limited number of sites and therefore may not capture the full extent to which AD is being used across these regions. Table 5 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to anaerobic digestion from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Region South East and East England Yorkshire and the Humber South West England Scotland North East England Total
Anaerobic Digestion (tonne) 7,710 1,201 983 451 203 10,548
2.6 Composting Composting also offers environmental benefits over landfilling and other disposal options as the resulting compost can be used as a soil conditioner. The amount of waste being composted is nearly half that being treated by AD, accounting for 4% of all the waste being generated. Nearly 70% of waste managed by this treatment option is generated in the north of England, as shown in Table 6. Northern Ireland and Wales also compost a significant amount of waste. Sites present in seven regions are currently making use of composting options. These figures are mapped in Figure 8. Table 6 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to composting from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Region Yorkshire and the Humber North West England North East England Northern Ireland and Wales Scotland South East and East England East Midlands Total
Composting 1,896 1,599 1,211 1,000 229 104 9 6,049
2.7 Landspreading Landspreading is by far the most widely used treatment method for the waste reported by responding sites in 2012. 37% of the total waste generated was treated this way. When considering food waste alone, this figure is up to 58%. The dominant areas for landspreading use are South East England and South West England. Yorkshire and the Humber and North West England also contribute significantly to the use of this management method, as shown in Table 7. These figures are mapped in Figure 9. Although this is the most widely used treatment method for the waste being reported, only sites located in six regions are using this option. Landspreading is classified as a recovery option, but is considered as such if, and only if, it results in ecological improvement or agricultural benefit. This practice is placed lower down the waste hierarchy compared to AD and composting; however, it offers a better environmental outcome compared to landfilling. There are several reasons why landspreading is the dominant treatment option for food waste; this route is often cheaper
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
11
than other options, particularly when the site is based in a rural area where agricultural land is plentiful. The proximity also keeps transport costs down. Another reason is that wastes such as liquid wastes and sludges are more suited for this type of treatment compared to AD and composting. Investment in de-watering facilities would be required to move this waste to alternative management routes like AD. Table 7 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to landspreading from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Region South East and East England South West England Yorkshire and the Humber North West England Northern Ireland and Wales West Midlands Total
Landspreading (tonnes) 10,964 10,071 8,333 7,051 1,698 1,333 39,451
2.8 Thermal treatment Thermal treatment with energy recovery lies towards the bottom of the waste hierarchy, although this is considered a recovery option in the European Waste Framework Directive13 (WFD) when the energy produced during the process is recovered to generate heat and/or power. This is the third most commonly-used method after landspreading and recycling, with 19% of waste being treated this way. Two thirds of wastes subject to thermal treatment with energy recovery are mixed wastes as this option is suited for the management of wastes which have not been segregated, offering a better environmental outcome compared to landfill. A dominant proportion of waste treated in this way, nearly 20,000 tonnes, originated from South East and East England (Table 8). Thermal treatment is used in several other regions although for much lower quantities of waste. These figures are mapped in Figure 10. Table 8 Tonnes of waste arisings sent to thermal treatment with energy recovery from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Thermal treatment with energy recovery Region (tonnes) South East and East England 19,358 North East England 1,523 East Midlands 975 London 872 Yorkshire and the Humber 853 North West England 849 Northern Ireland and Wales 400 West Midlands 271 Total 25,102 2.9 Disposal routes – summary Analysis in the previous sections has shown that the use of landfill by responding FDF members in 2012 was limited to 3% of total waste generation. This is an encouraging result and shows waste is successfully being diverted from landfill. However, figures on thermal 13
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
12
treatment, as well as for landspreading, show that much of this waste is being treated through recovery options, only a step up from disposal in the waste hierarchy. Recycling, AD and composting, which are higher up the waste hierarchy because they provide environmentally better outcomes compared to recovery methods, have shown significant improvement but are yet to become the major treatment routes. Manufacturers should aim to increase recycling rates and ultimately to work on waste prevention to avoid the generation of this waste. 2.10 Recovery/disposal routes for waste by country Table 9 shows that 93% of the waste was generated by manufacturing sites located in England. England was the largest producer of food and drink, but sites located here also generated more waste per tonne of food manufactured, at 34 kg waste per tonne. Northern Ireland and Wales, and Scotland generated 17 and 10 kg of waste per tonne of food manufactured respectively. In England, the dominant waste management option for the responding sites was landspreading. Thermal treatment with energy recovery and recycling also accounted for significant portions of the waste. Sites in Northern Ireland and Wales appeared to use recycling (more favoured in the waste hierarchy) in equal amounts to landspreading, as the key waste management pathways. Composting also accounted for a high proportion of waste managed in these two countries; however, this was followed by waste sent to landfill. Given the small number of responding sites in Northern Ireland and Wales, these figures may not be representative of these countries. Responses from Scotland for this survey were low, so individual site responses are likely to skew data slightly and this may not be an accurate representation of all food and drink manufacturing sites within the country. According to the responding sites, landfill was the major management method followed by recycling. These figures are mapped in Figure 11. Table 9 Total breakdown of recovery and disposal routes used by FDF member sites, by country, in 2012 Treatment Type AD Composting (IVC/Windrow) Recycling Other recycling Landspreading Thermal treatment (with energy recovery) Other recovery Thermal treatment (no energy recovery) Landfill Other disposal Total
10,097 4,820 23,722 4,395 37,753
Northern Ireland & Wales (tonnes) 1,000 1,648 1,698
24,702
400
-
7
-
-
238
-
-
2,741 28 108,502
627 412 5,786
846 2,023
England (tonnes)
Scotland (tonnes) 451 229 497 -
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
13
2.11 Packaging waste by type FDF members were asked to estimate the percentage of packaging waste which is primary14, secondary15 and tertiary16. Only 43 out of the responding member sites provided such estimates; a summary of these responses is presented in Table 10. These figures show that the majority of waste is primary packaging, followed by secondary and tertiary. However, there is great variation in figures between different sites. Table 10 Estimated percentage of packaging waste by type, in 2012 Packaging Type
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Minimum (%) Maximum (%) Weighted Average (%)
1 100 48
0 100 31
0 98 21
2.12 Mixed waste composition FDF members were asked to provide estimates on the composition of the mixed waste being generated at their sites. Only 39 sites provided estimates as to what percentage of mixed waste was made up by food and packaging waste; this data was used to calculate a weighted average composition of mixed waste. A summary of responses is shown in Table 11. The data shows that, on average, 60% of mixed waste is made up by food waste and 40% is packaging waste. However, there is great variation between different responding sites. It should be noted that mixed waste may contain some waste which is produced on site, but not as part of the manufacturing process or which is neither food nor packaging derived. For example, waste arising from onsite offices or canteens. Unfortunately, it is not possible to quantify this waste. Table 11 Estimated composition of mixed waste, in 2012
14
Waste Composition
Food Waste
Packaging Waste
Minimum (%) Maximum (%) Weighted Average (%)
1 99 60
1 99 40
Primary packaging is packaging that contains the finished or final products sometimes called retail or consumer packaging.
15
Secondary packaging is packaging additional to the primary packaging and that is used for protection and collation of individual units during storage, transport and distribution. 16
Tertiary packaging is outer packaging, including pallets, slip sheets, stretch wrap, strapping and any labels, used for the shipment and distribution of goods.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
14
3.0
By-products and redistribution
Manufacturing a food or drink product frequently produces by-products that are not legally classified as waste, for example peelings. There are very stringent rules for animal byproducts, though a very low percentage of responding FDF member sites reported handling meat. FDF members also donate food to charity or send food as an ingredient for use in animal feed. Charity donations and food sent for animal feed are also not classed as waste but are termed redistribution. In 2012, around 250,000 tonnes of by-products and food that is redistributed were produced by responding sites. The majority of this material, 241,931 tonnes and mainly comprising by products, went to animal feed (Table 12); around 3,000 tonnes was redistributed for human consumption via charities and other providers. Some 4,665 tonnes went to ‘Other’ destinations including industrial uses such as reuse within processes located at other sites run by the same manufacturer. Redistributing food to charity or to animal feed avoids having to regard this material as waste. This is beneficial because it provides another alternative to landfill and because the resources including the embodied energy that went into producing these materials and create the product are fully utilised. Resources that would otherwise have been consumed in the production of animal feed are also saved. However, it is still important to minimise production and supply chain inefficiencies in order to reduce the need for raw materials and energy usage during production. Table 12 Tonnes of by-products and redistributed food from FDF member sites in 2012
Category By-products Food Redistribution Total
Human consumption The Charity Company (eg Shop' (or Fareshare) similar)
Other
Animal Feed
Rendering
Total Other industrial use
7
741
215,271
-
4,391
220,409
1
2,400
26,661
-
275
29,337
3,149
241,931
4,665
249,746
Table 13 shows the breakdown of the tonnages in Table 12 by FDF members’ sites by geographic region. South East and East England are the areas where the largest amounts of by-products are produced, followed by Yorkshire and the Humber. These are also the areas with the highest production of waste, but also the highest tonnage of food being manufactured. Yorkshire and the Humber and North West England are sending the most surplus food to charity and for animal feed. These figures are mapped in Figure 12.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
15
Table 13 Tonnes of by-products and redistributed food from FDF member sites, by region, in 2012 Region
By-products (tonnes)
Food (tonnes)
South East and East England Yorkshire and the Humber Northern Ireland and Wales North West England East Midlands South West England London West Midlands North East England Scotland Total
20,681 9,014 4,031 16,146 33,479 2,606 70,777 11,691 6,882 45,103 220,409
1,396 7,087 203 11,229 1,122 3,236 1,580 3,484 29,337
Total (tonnes)
22,076 16,101 4,234 27,375 34,600 2,606 74,013 11,691 8,462 48,587 249,746
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
16
4.0
Trends in waste arisings
4.1 Trends in waste arisings In order to create a like-for-like comparison with the previous survey data, a sub-sample of sites providing arisings data for each of the four years was created and analysed. A total of 55 sites fitted this criterion, and the aggregated tonnages are given in Table 14. These data do not cover a sufficient number of sites to represent trends within the food and drink manufacturing sector. Furthermore, the responding sites do not represent all the food categories produced within the sector nor the full range of company sizes. It should also be noted that the 2008 survey - collecting data for 2006 - did not explicitly ask for by-products and redistribution to be reported separately from waste figures. These were only identified through manufacturer’s comments to the survey; therefore, some by-products may still be present within the total tonnage of waste generated. Finally, production data from one site, for 2008 and 2009, has been amended in the light of data received in the latest survey. Figures from 2006 and 2012 showed production data for 2008 and 2009 had been reported in the wrong units: these were therefore adjusted accordingly. Table 14 shows that production at the 55 sites has increased by nearly 200,000 tonnes between 2006 and 2012. Waste figures show a large reduction in waste generated between 2006 and 2008; however, the levelling-off of waste amounts in 2008, 2009 and 2012 suggests that this 40% reduction is partly due to misreporting on by-products in 2006. The large drop in food waste arisings between 2006 and the subsequent years also suggests byproducts may have been misreported. Errors in filling in the survey may also have occurred in the first survey; however, in the most recent surveys, by-product reporting was explicit, lowering the uncertainty but also enabling better comparisons given that the same questions were asked. Table 14 Total production and waste arisings from FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 Year
Total Production (tonnes)
Total Waste (tonnes)
2006
3,087,949
140,458
Total Byproducts/Redistribution (tonnes) 265,794
2008
3,078,441
84,748
233,103
2009
3,121,982
85,718
241,183
2012
3,272,685
86,630
225,703
Figure 1 shows trends in total waste generated per tonne of product manufactured from FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012. As mentioned above, the figure from 2006 is not reliable as this is likely to include by-products. Data from the following three years show that the ratio of waste to production decreased slightly between 2008 and 2012. Given the small change it is not possible to confirm whether there has been an actual reduction or whether this is due to uncertainty in the reported data. Further efforts on waste prevention should be made in order to significantly decouple waste generation from food and drink production. For example, WRAP’s Courtauld Commitment 3 has a target to reduce manufacturers’ and retailers’ food and packaging waste by 3% in absolute terms by 2015, from a 2012 baseline. This target represents a reduction of 8% relative to anticipated production and sales volumes, although the target is only valid for signatories to this commitment.17 17
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/courtauld-commitment-3
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
17
Figure 1 Total waste generated per tonne of product from FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 0.05
Waste per tonne product (t)
0.05
0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 2006
2008
2009
2012
The data in Table 14 show that the amount of by-products and food that is redistributed decreased by 33,000 tonnes or 12% from 2006 to 2008. This value is likely to be larger given that total waste generated in 2006 is believed to include some by-products. If so, the rate of decrease suggests that there may have been some efficiency improvements both on site and along the supply chain and possibly that manufacturing methods, in some sites, have moved towards leaner production. Data for 2008 to 2012 also show a reduction, however, not a significant one. 4.2 Trends in waste arisings by type Table 15 shows the breakdown by waste type for waste generated in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012. The large figure for food waste produced in 2006 suggests that a proportion of this is likely to be by-products or redistributed food; however, whether this is true and to what extent cannot be determined. Overall, food waste was the major type of waste produced in all four years. Following the large reduction in 2008 compared to 2006, food waste arisings decreased again in 2010 but this was associated with a marked increase in by-product products. In 2012, food waste arisings increased again. This is partly due to higher production but also to better segregation. As can be seen in Table 15, a lower amount of mixed waste resulted in an increase in segregated food and packaging waste. Packaging waste arisings showed a slight decrease between 2006 and 2008, but have since increased steadily. The percentage of total waste accounted for by packaging waste has also increased. Data for 2009 show that packaging waste increased despite the fact that mixed waste arisings did not decrease; therefore, this change is due to a genuine increase in packaging waste. Data for 2012 suggests that better segregation resulted in higher amounts of packaging waste and lower amounts of mixed waste.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
18
Table 15 Waste arisings by type for FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 (t)
(%)
Total packaging waste (t) (%)
2006
103,649
74%
15,494
2008
55,257
65%
2009
51,051
2012
54,639
Year
Total food waste
Total mixed waste
Total waste (tonnes)
(t)
(%)
11%
21,315
15%
140,458
12,210
14%
17,281
20%
84,748
60%
14,410
17%
20,257
24%
85,718
63%
17,653
20%
14,338
17%
86,630
Following a reduction between 2006 and 2008, mixed waste increased again in 2009, accounting for up to 24% of total waste. A significant decrease is shown between 2009 and 2012, despite an overall growth in waste generated by the 55 responding sites. This suggests that this reduction is a result of better on-site waste segregation. 4.3 Trends in waste management The breakdown by management route for waste generated by the sites that responded to all three surveys is shown in Table 16. Landspreading was the dominant management method in all years, with the exception of 2006. Again, the 2006 survey did not originally set out to separately record the tonnages of by-products and redistributed food that do not enter the waste stream. As a result there is a strong possibility that some respondents included these materials within the ‘recycling’ figure. This may partly explain the 2006 figure for recycling, which is over three times the amount of waste recycled in 2012. Data for 2012 show that AD experienced a significant uplift from 21t to over 9,000t; this is clearly shown in Figure 2. The amount of waste being composted in 2012 decreased by 60% compared to 2010 figures. Overall, the use of AD and composting options combined has more than doubled since 2006. The ‘other recycling’ option has increased significantly since 2008; it is not clear what these management options entail as not enough information was provided by food manufacturers. It is possible that this may include by-products or redistributed food. Recycling has also become a more popular management option showing an increase of 35% from 2008 to 2012. Table 16 Use of recovery/disposal routes (in tonnes) by FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 Recycle
Other recycle
Landspread
Thermal trtmt (with energy recovery)
Other recovery
Thermal trtmt
Landfill
Yr
AD
Compost
Other disposal
Total
‘06
21
5,764
68,216
637
42,086
-
929
-
‘08
-
4,976
15,697
73
44,741
-
-
-
22,805
-
140,458
18,824
437
84,748
‘09
-
10,377
21,707
2,722
35,491
80
335
-
14,623
383
85,718
‘12
9,025
4,244
21,325
4,395
39,257
3,856
7
85
4,023
413
86,630
A positive trend highlighted by these figures is the strong reduction in the use of landfill. The amount of waste sent to landfill decreased by over 80% from 2006 to 2012. Part of this reduction is due to an overall reduction in waste being generated from 2006 and 2012, although it is not possible to quantify this due to data inconsistencies in 2006. More reliable figures for 2008 to 2012 show that more waste is being diverted from landfill.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
19
Figure 2 Use of recovery/disposal routes (in tonnes) by FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 160,000
AD 140,000 Composting 120,000
Recycling
Other recycling
100,000
Landspreading 80,000 Thermal trtmt (with energy recovery)
60,000
Other recovery 40,000
Thermal trtmt (without energy recovery) Landfill
20,000
Other disposal 2006
2008
2009
2012
Table 17 shows trends in management methods according to the three waste types. Data for food waste shows a positive move towards AD although composting has decreased considerably since 2010. Low figures for landfill in 2012 are very encouraging. Packaging waste also shows a positive trend from landfill to recycling, moving from 79% of packaging waste being managed in this way in 2006 to 95% in 2012. Figures for mixed waste show that some improvements in waste segregation have been made over the past six years, as the total amount being generated has decreased. This is not due to waste prevention, as separated food and packaging waste have increased in the same period of time. Breakdown of management method shows that the diversion from landfill has resulted in increased recycling and thermal treatment with energy recovery. The latter method is considered to be better than landfill; nevertheless, it still lies towards the bottom of the waste hierarchy. More effort should be made to prevent the generation of this waste, and where this does still arise, to segregate the waste at source to allow for management routes such as AD and recycling.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
20
Table 17 Management method (in tonnes) by waste type for FDF member sites providing data for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2012 Yr
AD
Compost
Recycle
Other recycle
Landspread
Thermal trtmt (with energy recovery)
Other recovery
Thermal trtmt
Landfill
Other disposal
Total
Food Waste ‘06
21
5,704
54,795
637
41,960
-
-
-
532
-
103,649
‘08
-
4,820
3,563
73
43,834
-
-
-
2,867
100
55,257
‘09
-
9,941
3,917
95
35,491
-
-
-
1,507
100
51,051
‘12
7,839
4,244
684
2,325
37,924
1,201
7
-
4
412
54,639
‘06
-
60
12,235
-
-
-
-
-
3,199
-
15,494
‘08
-
-
10,022
-
-
-
-
-
2,031
157
12,210
‘09
-
196
12,208
-
-
80
335
-
1,467
124
14,410
‘12
-
-
16,853
-
-
398
-
-
402
-
17,653
Packaging Waste
Mixed Waste ‘06
-
-
1,186
-
126
-
929
-
19074
-
21,315
‘08
-
156
2,112
-
907
-
-
-
13,926
180
17,281
‘09
-
240
5,582
2,627
-
-
-
-
11,649
159
20,257
‘12
1,186
-
3,789
2,070
1,333
2,257
-
85
3,617
1
14,338
4.4 Data limitations As mentioned above, the survey distributed in 2006 did not collect separate data for byproducts or food sent for redistribution; however, several respondents’ comments indicated that such materials sent to animal feed had been included in the recycling figures. This has been amended where possible though the high overall waste figure for 2006 suggests that some data for animal feed is still included. The response rate for the survey decreased from 236 responding sites in 2008, to 149 in 2010, to 135 in 2013. Of these sites, only 55 provided data for all four years. Therefore it was not possible to directly compare waste management trends for all sites. It is also important to recognise that being a snapshot survey of a sample of FDF members, the trends recorded are not necessarily a reflection of the industry as a whole. Regional data is as reported and may reflect under- or over-reporting. The data have not been standardised against production. The availability of management routes in the respective regions was outside the scope of this project.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
21
5.0
Conclusions
This survey shows that FDF members are making good progress towards meeting the target of seeking to send zero food and packaging waste to landfill by 2015 at the latest, part of the FDF’s ‘Five-Fold Environmental Ambition’. The survey responses show that, out of the 138,836 tonnes of waste generated by the sites which reported the treatment breakdown, only 4,214 tonnes (3%) were sent to landfill. This compares to a figure of 9% in 2009 and nearly 17% in 2006. A large percentage of waste being landfilled is mixed waste; therefore, to achieve zero waste to landfill manufacturing sites should first consider how to achieve better segregation of this waste at source to enable more to be recycled. Landspreading is the dominant treatment method for the waste reported in this survey, accounting for 37% of total waste; this is increased to 58% for food waste alone. Thermal treatment with energy recovery, anaerobic digestion and composting also account for a significant proportion of the food waste reported. In particular, there has been significant uptake of anaerobic digestion compared to previous years. In terms of packaging waste, recycling is the dominant treatment option, with 96% of the waste being treated this way. Finally, 57% of mixed waste is treated by thermal treatment with energy recovery, where this is clearly being used as an alternative to divert this waste from landfill. Such treatment offers an improved environmental option compared to landfill; however, in order to achieve a better environmental outcome, more effort should be put into segregating such waste so as to make recycling a viable route for at least part of it including by increasing the proportion of food waste going to AD. Analysis of the sub-sample of 55 sites providing data for all four years shows that waste generation in 2008, 2009 and 2012 was fairly constant, although there was a slight increase in production in 2012. When compared to total food and drink production at these sites, the waste to production ratio has decreased very slightly between 2008 and 2012. Continued efforts should be made by the food and drink manufacturing sector to minimise waste generation as much as possible for example by setting internal key performance indicators and deeper application of lean manufacturing principles. Waste prevention lies at the top of the waste hierarchy and is more environmentally and financially effective than any waste management option. This analysis also shows that the waste being landfilled at the 55 sites decreased from 22,805 tonnes in 2006 to 4,023 tonnes in 2012; these sites are therefore close to achieving the zero waste to landfill ambition. Data from the last two surveys suggests that recycling is the major treatment route for packaging waste and landspreading for food waste. Finally, data from the 55 sites shows that the percentage of mixed waste has decreased slightly since 2008, showing that greater segregation of manufacturing waste has been achieved. This has resulted in lower amounts of waste being landfilled. However, some of this waste has been diverted from landfill to thermal treatment suggesting there is still opportunity for improvement.
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
22
Appendix I Figure 3 Total waste reported by region in 2012 (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
23
Figure 4 Total waste reported by region and type in 2012 (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
24
Figure 5 Total waste reported sent to landfill in 2012, by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
25
Figure 6 Total waste reported sent to landfill by type in 2012, by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
26
Figure 7 Total waste reported sent to AD in 2012 by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
27
Figure 8 Total waste reported sent to composting in 2012 by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
28
Figure 9 Total waste reported sent to landspreading in 2012 by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
29
Figure 10 Total waste reported sent to thermal treatment with energy recovery in 2012 by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
30
Figure 11 Recovery/disposal routes for total waste reported by country in 2012 (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
31
Figure 12 Total by-products and redistributed food reported in 2012 by region (tonnes)
Food and Drink Federation Members’ Waste Survey
32
Registered to ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14001:2004
This report has been written by:
Tecla Castella
Checked as a final copy by:
Katie Deegan
Approved by:
David Fitzsimons
Date:
16 December 2013
Contact:
[email protected]
File reference:
FDF-02 359.docx
Contents amendment record This report has been amended and issued as follows: Version
Date
V1
29.11.2013
Description
TC
V2
06.12.2013
TC
V3
13.12.2013
TC
V4
13.01.2017
TC
Disclaimer: This report was prepared in accordance with the contracted scope of services for the specific purpose stated and subject to the applicable cost, time and other constraints. In preparing this report, Oakdene Hollins Ltd relied on (1) client/third party information which was not verified by Oakdene Hollins except to the extent required in the scope of services (and Oakdene Hollins does not accept responsibility for omissions or inaccuracies in the client/third party information) and (2) information taken at or under the particular times and conditions specified (and Oakdene Hollins does not accept responsibility for any subsequent changes). This report has been prepared solely for use by and is confidential to WRAP, and Oakdene Hollins accepts no responsibility for its use by other persons. This report is subject to copyright protection and the copyright owner reserves its rights. This report does not constitute legal advice. This disclaimer, together with any limitations specified in the report, applies to use of this report.
www.wrap.org.uk/relevant link
Author
Ed
K
