Cash-strapped local authorities are at a real and metaphorical tipping point when it comes to tackling the criminal gangs exploiting loopholes in the law around the illegal dumping of waste.
They recognise there is a major problem for them but they can’t manage it without being able to measure it in the first instance, not to mention the fact that they also have to prioritise conflicting demands on the public purse during a cost of living crisis.
Even the Environment Agency (EA), which has pledged to get tough on waste crime and its perpetrators through deterrence and disruption strategies admits it does not know the full extent of the problem.
In a report published in Spring 2022, EA CEO Sir James Bevan, said: 'One of the most unsettling things about waste crime is that nobody knows exactly its true scale. We do know that it is huge: our latest estimate is that some 18% of waste is currently managed illegally at some point in the waste stream. That is around 34 million tonnes of waste every year - enough to fill 13,500 Olympic swimming pools or Wembley stadium 30 times. So, it’s big and it’s getting bigger with all the evidence suggesting that waste crime is on the rise. The Environment Agency’s own 2021 National Waste Crime Survey concluded that waste crime in England was endemic. And we have good reason to believe that the Covid lockdowns, which made it harder for the EA and law enforcement to operate freely, contributed to a further increase in the last two years.'
One of the most lucrative forms of waste crime is that of misdescription. Specific tariffs exist for disposing of different kinds of waste in landfills. A lower rate of tax - currently just over £3 a tonne - applies to less polluting materials such as soils and hardcore material, while a standard rate - currently just under £99 a tonne - is in place for household residual waste. Deliberate misdescription provides waste criminals, using collusion and corruption at the point of disposal, a massive profit margin at the expense of long-term damage to the environment. With loads entering sites in vehicles capable of holding 10, 20 or even 40 tonnes and some large sites taking over 200 vehicle movements per day, it doesn’t take much to work out the potential extent of the scale.
While the EA acts as the enforcement agent, the investigations into often corrupt practices fall to the waste management companies who are investing in covert operations and unannounced audits using experienced security personnel, many of whom have worked in the UK’s elite special forces, to identify perpetrators to prosecute. Local authorities do not share that luxury. Even though waste crime, including mis-description and widespread fly-tipping blight their areas, they feature only as footnote in a growing number of priorities piling up as a result of not having the level of resources to effectively tackle the crisis.
What they do have in terms of resources, they tend to throw at expensive technical solutions for maximum impact. But this can be counter intuitive as they tend to get sold a lot of expensive surveillance equipment with which to do it themselves. As someone with over 30-years’ experience of identifying and prosecuting waste criminals, this ad-hoc approach never works.
The kit deployed is often not fit for purpose and lacks the expertise required to bring waste criminals to justice because councils on tight budgets understandably want to do most of the task themselves, but this can represent a waste of council taxpayer’s money. It would be better for councils to seek better counsel from organisations that can provide them with more suitable equipment and carry out the tasks cost-effectively.
Done correctly, it will serve to disrupt criminal activity and send a deterrent message that illegal and corrupt practices will be discovered and prosecutions brought.
Some local authorities have accepted the limitation of their expertise in this area and engage us directly. Also, several councils actually run their own waste facilities such as energy from waste units that can sometimes be open to abuse from unscrupulous waste hauliers who want only to exceed the set quota limits at a site. This is generally not highlighted until sometime after the fraud has started. We have even had incidents when drivers have utilised a company’s RCV (refuge collection vehicle) to go around picking up builders’ waste and tipping it on the client’s account. We would normally counter this with covert surveillance and auditing of tracker information.
The word covert sometimes worries councils because it is somehow perceived that they are doing something sneaky or underhand, but nothing could be further from the truth. All covert tasks are conducted following investigation justification meeting with the client where a justification document is completed for each deployment by the director of investigations at Subrosa Group, a former senior police officer. Tasks are conducted in line with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the Police and Criminal Evidence legislation (PACE) and GDPR compliance. All tactics and equipment utilised are discussed and agreed with the client prior to deployment and this ensures covert operations are appropriate, proportionate and non-intrusive.
Councils are duty bound to spend taxpayer’s money wisely and that is why Intelligence-led investigation with the right personnel and technology will not only disrupt waste crime through targeted prosecutions but send a deterrent message to those who see dumping and tipping as a risk-free enterprise. It also provides an example of a strong return on the investment to the council taxpayer.
Niall Burns is CEO of the Subrosa Group
