2.3 The Department needed to encourage local authorities to make the best use of resources available. However, the Department was slow to develop a rigorous approach to establishing a programme of projects, which limited the number and size of projects being developed. Prior to 2003 in particular, there were shortcomings in three areas.
|
7 |
The Department's allocation of PFI credits was increased substantially in the 2007 Spending Review |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Spending
|
PFI credits
|
Mximum PFI
|
|||
|
2002 |
355 |
25 |
|||
|
2004 |
372 |
40 |
|||
|
2007 |
2,000 |
No absolute limit (credit capped at maximum of 50 per cent of capital cost of projects) |
|||
|
Source: Defra PFI project approval criteria |
|||||
■ The approach to programme management was not sufficiently well organised. Until 2003 it was not clear to local authorities where responsibility for managing the programme lay within the Department. In 2003 the Department introduced a Waste Implementation Programme to oversee its overall strategy on recycling and waste management, which established an identifiable leadership and management structure. Local authorities have noticed an improvement in communication as a result of this change.
■ The PFI programme was not focused on landfill diversion. The Department's first standard criteria for the approval of PFI projects, released in 2001, did not focus explicitly on landfill diversion or the EU directive. In 2003 the Department updated its criteria so that project targets had to be specified in terms of the landfill diversion targets. The 2001 criteria also discouraged the use of energy from waste (incineration) as a means of diverting waste from landfill. The 2003 criteria removed this restriction.
■ There was no systematic approach to bringing forward and prioritising projects. Projects were approved on a case by case basis. There was no explicit focus on encouraging the authorities that were sending the most waste to landfill to develop new infrastructure.