Home > Resource > Briefing > A better quality of investment: Friends of the Earth's Seventh 'Blueprint for a Green Budget'
Home > Resource > Briefing > A better quality of investment: Friends of the Earth's Seventh 'Blueprint for a Green Budget'
Introduction
FOE's Recommendations for Budget 2001
Budget 2001 will be crucial for the environment and for keeping momentum behind the reform of taxation and public expenditure to bring them in line with the goal of sustainable development.
It has to achieve three things.
First, it must demonstrate that the Government has stood firm in defence of the first steps it has taken during its term of office. The Pre-Budget Report represented a first but significant wobble in that defence and Budget 2001 must move quickly to re-establish this modernising agenda..
Second, it must consolidate the practice of integrating tax measures, tax expenditure measures and spending plans. Over the past twelve months both the climate change levy package and measures aimed at greening transport have recognised the importance of such joined policy making.
Third, it must present a vision for stepping up the process of reform..
Welcome as the initial measures introduced by the Government have been
they are just that. It is time now to move the next level of shifting
taxation and spending. Most importantly of all that vision has to be
explicit in showing that this is an agenda not for environmental protection
alone but for reducing social exclusion and building a resilient, dynamic
and sustainable economy.
Foe's Recommendations for budget 2001
INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATION AND
INVESTMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
CUTTING CO2 EMISSIONS AND AIR POLLUTION FROM TRANSPORT
Measures are required to reduce both levels of traffic and emissions from vehicles. The Pre-Budget Report failed to keep this balance by reducing the incentive to drive less. Budget 2001 must correct this with measures to encourage the use of public and collective transport alongside incentives for investment in cleaner more fuel-efficient vehicles.
REDUCING TRAFFIC AND IMPROVING PUBLIC TRANSPORT
INCREASING INVESTMENT IN CLEANER FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES
CUTTING PESTICIDE POLLUTION AND EXPANDING ORGANIC
FARMING
PROTECTING THE COUNTRYSIDE AND ENCOURAGING URBAN
REGENERATION
INCREASING RECYCLING AND REMOVING TAX INCENTIVES FOR WASTE INCINERATION
SETTING OUT A VISION AND STRATEGY FOR QUALITY
GROWTH FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
The Government aims to improve both the quality and quantity of investment and growth in the UK. It has made a clear strategic choice to encourage investment in technologies that increase resource productivity as central element of improving the quality of investment. The Department of Trade and Industry's sustainable development strategy and HM Treasury's statement of intent on environmental taxation make the case. Tax incentives that help deliver this increased quality of investment should be a priority for the Government at Budget 2001.
The earlier investments are made in cleaner processes, reductions in the use of toxic chemicals and renewable energy, the faster the costs of these technologies will come down for future investments. This will improve the cost-efficiency of the overall package of policies aimed at delivering these benefits. Tax incentives will also reduce the risk of making these investments by reducing initial costs and increasing confidence in their future.
The economy as a whole would benefit through increased competitiveness as inefficiency in the use of raw materials and energy was reduced and as environmental performance through reductions in pollution and waste was improved. Installing such incentives would also boost the UK environmental industries sector which is competing in one of the sunrise industries of the global economy with a market set to increase from £175 billion to £400 billion by 2010.
Provide enhanced capital allowance for investment in innovative environmental technologies.
Allowing British firms to set 100% of the capital investment in these technologies against their tax bill in one year would reduce the perceived risk of making these investments. Given the innate conservatism of mainstream British industries, such incentives are necessary to bring about the desired change in investment, technological development and other commercial behaviour. A recent survey for the Environmental Industries Commission showed that 94% of business leaders support investment allowances for cleaner technology.
A similar scheme, run since 1991 in the Netherlands, has been reviewed and considered such a success that it will be continued indefinitely. Qualifying technologies are placed on a list which is periodically updated. Listed technologies are emerging ones with less than 30% market penetration, but which are judged to have a higher environmental performance than the alternatives. In 1995, there were around 450 technologies on the list. In the first three years, over 10,000 firms took advantage of the scheme.
Treasury's opposition to tax incentives has softened as the evidence that when well designed such measures can be a cost-effective at stimulating quality investment. Already an enhanced capital allowance scheme has been included within the Climate Change Levy package to encourage business investment in energy efficiency technologies. At Budget 2001 it should install a scheme for innovative environmental technologies that will benefit the whole UK economy.
Grant a tax credit of at least 50% of investment cost in off-shore wind energy, photovoltaics and wave power.
This tax credit should operate in addition to the accelerated depreciation allowance for these three technologies that are vital to meeting the UK's climate change commitments and the Governments targets for increasing the uptake of renewable energy.
Currently, these technologies are higher up the cost curve than other renewable energy technologies, such as on-shore wind, which have received similar significant Government aid in recent years. Providing an additional tax break for these three technologies can be persuasively justified on several grounds.
First, this is a tax expenditure made to avoid the external costs of climate change. Expanding renewable energy generation is recognised by the Government as central to tackling climate change. But restricting that expansion to technologies which have lower costs at present would be short-sighted and inefficient. It will be necessary to exploit the full range of available renewable technologies, each of which have particular characteristics, in order to deliver the levels of output required. Thus, for example, off-shore wind can exploit the substantial resource provided by constant high winds and shallow seas in many areas around the UK; and, photovoltaic technologies can by-pass conventional electricity infrastructure and be installed directly at the customers point of use, their buildings.
Second, the earlier investment in these technologies is undertaken the faster the costs will fall for future investments. In other words, investments now have a positive external effect on investment costs in the future.
Third, this policy improves the cost-efficiency of the overall package of policies aimed at increasing renewable energy output by reducing the costs of investment.
Fourth, it reduces the risk of making investments in these renewable energy technologies. A declining cost base does not mean that investing in renewable energy is free of commercial risk, as the rate of decline, for example, cannot be predicted with certainty. Tax breaks can help reduce those risks and stimulate further output of renewable energy. Investment decisions are very sensitive to expectations about the future, and to the costs of the initial capital investment rather than to the costs of operation. Tax breaks on investment in these technologies reduce initial investment costs and increase confidence.
Fifth, the urgency with which these investments need to be made cannot rely on the market eventually bringing investment costs down. Addressing climate change now has a clear timetable for action. Tax incentives of this type speed up investment rates, increase technological innovation and reduce the costs of future investments.
Sixth, these technologies offer clear and specific opportunities for UK companies. The UK has an established marine engineering industry that can combine with UK firms that have begun to compete successfully in the market for wind turbine components to exploit increased demand for off-shore wind generation. Two major UK companies are significant players in the photovoltaics market and would be well placed to exploit increased demand for this technology. The UK has a technological lead in the development of wave-power that should be built upon immediately and not allowed to lost.
Establish a £1,500 Green ISA top-up scheme.
Most decision-makers in the investment community act on financial criteria
to the exclusion of other factors in deciding their investment strategies.
If and when environmental threats or poverty relief, for example, are
considered, it is usually in the context of liabilities that may arise
from damage to property or health. This means that short-term economic
and financial interests generally override longer-term environmental
priorities.
Investment funds that explicitly include environmental and ethical considerations in their decisions offer competitive returns on investment but remain a niche market. But if the investment market is play its full role in delivering quality investment and growth that delivers sustainable development such green investment strategies have to become mainstream.
Allowing ISA providers to offer at extra £1,500 tax-free saving when those investments contributed to meeting key environmental goals would have several effects including:
The criteria for which activities are included should be finalised following open consultation. FOE believes that the areas of investment should be those where mainstream funding is currently more difficult to obtain but which have a vital role to play in delivering sustainable development, such as: renewable energy, organic agriculture, public transport, energy saving, water saving, sustainable forestry, countryside management and green housing projects and programmes.
At Budget 2001 the Chancellor should announce his intention to introduce this scheme from April 2002, following the consultation on the details of the scheme.
CUTTING CO2 EMISSIONS AND AIR POLLUTION FROM TRANSPORT
Budget 2001 must send a clear signal that the Government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport by reducing both traffic and CO2 emissions from vehicles.
No straight cuts in any fuel duty rates.
The incentives for ultra-low sulphur diesel and petrol announced in the Pre-Budget Report (PBR) were aimed at increasing local air quality - not tackling climate change. Previously differential fuel duty rates were introduced by varying the increase in duty which allowed for such incentives to be introduced in parallel with strengthening the incentive to drive less. The incentives in the PBR were introduced at the expense of the incentive to drive less because they were a straight cut in duty.
The changes in duty announced at the PBR further weakened the Government's climate change strategy. Scrapping of the road fuel duty escalator in Budget 2000 is predicted increase traffic growth by 36% between 1996 and 2010 if no new measures are taken. This jeopardises the Government's manifesto commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010 compared to 1990 levels. It also makes a mockery of John Prescott's pledge that the number of car journeys would fall during the first term of a Labour Government.
Incentives introduced at Budget 2001 through varying fuel duty rates and rebates should be limited to those that contribute directly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. Even those incentives that will help the development of more efficient engines in the longer-term should be introduced the next time road fuel duty is increased. An incentive for zero sulphur diesel and further incentives for ultra-low sulphur petrol are both measures we would support the next time the standard rate of road fuel duty is increased.
Budget 2001 must also show that the Government is committed to reinvesting a greater proportion of the revenues from fuel duty to make it easier for people and businesses to do the green thing and drive less, and when they do, to use more energy-efficient vehicles.
Incentives to use public transport rather than the car.
John Prescott, after the last election, made bold claims for reducing car use and increasing the use of public transport. Gordon Brown, aside form scrapping the road fuel escalator, has introduced measures that make some contribution to encouraging a shift to public transport. But these measures have been limited. Taken as a whole they do represent a comprehensive strategy. In fact they look too much like a set of gestures in the right direction. At Budget 2001 the Chancellor can turn this around with a set of measures that join-up the thinking behind the measures in the last two Budgets and create a comprehensive and integrated policy package.
Fuel duty rebate for public bus services has been increased. But school buses, works buses and scheduled coach services all of which can play an important role in reducing traffic are not eligible for the rebate. Extending the 75% rebate to these services would cost in the order of £60 million.
Tax relief for commuting by bus is only available if it is by a works bus. As travelling by a works bus is not option that most commuters have this limited tax relief is not going have much effect in shifting commuters from the car to the bus. The majority of commuters do have the option of commuting on public bus services but if they or their employer buys a season-ticket for them to do so there is no tax relief. If the employer contracts the local bus service to provide a service for its commuters there is no tax relief. Granting tax relief for commuting using local bus services would cut car commuting by 5% and so reduce CO2 emissions, improve local air quality and reduce congestion. It would also encourage the development of local public bus services. It would cost £210 million a year.
Increasing investment in cleaner fuel efficient vehicles.
As far as encouragement for investing in cleaner fuel efficient vehicles was concerned the Pre-Budget Report gave with one hand and took away with the other. On balance the Chancellor took more than he gave.
Cutting fuel duty reduces the incentive to buy more fuel efficient vehicles and the cleaner fuels that were provided incentives can be used in existing vehicles. But more galling was the weakening in the Pre-Budget of a policy specifically designed to encourage investment in more fuel efficient cars. When the Chancellor first varied the rate of Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) with this aim he offered a lower rate to vehicles with small engines. In November he watered down the incentive by extending the lower rate to vehicles with larger engines.
On the giving side, the Chancellor bid announce new money for the Powershift programme for more new energy efficient engine technologies and bid remove the distortion in company allowances that discourages investment in vehicles with new engine types. These measures are modest and do not represent new significant incentives for increasing investment in cleaner more energy efficient vehicles. In Budget 2001 the Chancellor should provide such incentives by improving on the Pre-Budget Report measures.
VED should be reformed in-line with the Government's initial commitment that "more efficient, less polluting cars will pay less and less efficient ones will pay more". The incentive to buy cars with an engine size under 1,100cc should be reinstalled with a further cut in the VED rate for these vehicles. The VED rate for cars over 2,000cc should be raised to discourage the purchase of the least fuel efficient vehicles.
Company cars account for over half of new car sales. Providing a powerful incentive for companies to buy cars with new cleaner, energy efficient engine technologies is therefore an effective policy approach. Yet at the PBR the Chancellor announced that company car allowances were to be reformed only to remove the current bias against these technologies. At Budget 2001 he should announce strong incentive favour of these technologies.
CUTTING PESTICIDE POLLUTION AND EXPANDING ORGANIC FARMING
The farming industry is in its worse recession since 1939. To make matters worse, farmers are held in low esteem by consumers, who generally regard them as over-subsidised producers of inferior quality food who damage wildlife and landscapes. Farming subsidies have established and supported chemically intensive farming as the norm. But the damage to biodiversity, human health and rural economies of this distorted market make clear that the external costs of pesticide use have to be addressed and subsidies need to be redirected.
A pesticide tax package
In November 1999 the Chancellor has recognised that a pesticide tax or charge "could be a useful tool in conjunction with other measures"in delivering a reduction in pesticide pollution and the minimisation of pesticide use. Unfortunately since then designing an effective package of measures around a pesticide tax has been put on hold. Instead, the Government has trying to get the pesticide industry to come-up with a credible alternative package of voluntary measures but without success. Two similar versions of the same feeble package have been rejected by the Chancellor. The third version offers no significant improvements. There is no justification for the Chancellor delaying any longer in consulting on the additional measures required for an effective pesticide tax package.
Ensuring that the revenues of the tax are recycled back to farmers in ways that help them move-on from chemically intensive farming and help strengthen rural economies is crucial element of the package design. It is encouraging that the Climate Change Levy package shows that the Government accepted the need to integrate tax and spending policies in a mutually reinforcing way.
Experience from other countries, including Sweden, Austria and Denmark, has shown that a package of measures, including a pesticide tax and other incentives such as information, advice and grant-aid schemes, designed to encourage farmers to adopt less chemically intensive or organic farming systems, are a highly effective method of reducing pesticide use. The package can be paid for by recycling revenues from the tax. In Sweden and Denmark, reductions in total pesticide use of 65% over nine years, and 30% over seven years, respectively have been achieved.
Grant-aid to support farmers wishing to convert from chemically intensive farming to organic farming should be a central part of the UK pesticide tax package. Organic farming delivers a clear and measurable reduction in pesticide use. It also reduces other external environmental costs of chemical farming, including nitrate and phosphate contamination of drinking water and emissions to air of the greenhouse gas and ozone depleting nitrous oxide. The Government's recent support scheme for organic conversion of £16 million over two years was accounted for in six months. Funding a £32 million a year fund for organic conversion would account for less that half of the lower range of the revenue forecast for a pesticide tax.
Research to allow more farms to convert successfully to organic farming should also be included in the package. For example, large, chemically intensive, arable-only farms are responsible for high levels of pesticide pollution, receive the largest proportion of current subsidies but require the greatest levels of investment and reform of their businesses to convert to organic. Research is needed to help identify how these barriers to pesticide reduction can be overcome. Given that organic farming has been an under-researched area of agricultural policy that has an increasingly significant role to play, as emphasised by the Rural White Paper, we propose that £15 million of the pesticide tax revenues are reinvested in research.
The lion's share of the remaining revenues should fund extensive advice and training schemes for farmers. The main aims should be to: spread best practice in organic farming, integrated pest management and other methods of pesticide reduction; encourage conversion to organic farming and integrated pest management; and disseminate the findings of the research programme.
The consultation should be completed in time for the Pre-Budget Report in autumn 2001.
Shifting farming subsidies off production targets and onto measures that enhance the environment and strengthen local rural economies.
To date the nature of the subsidies handed out through the Common
Agricultural Policy
(CAP) for over intensive production has been the main cause of environmental
damage in this sector. But CAP reforms have now given national governments
a degree of real flexibility in how they pay out subsidies. No longer
do all subsidies have to be direct production payments. Up to 20 per
cent can be redirected through measures such as support for organic
farming and the positive management of wildlife sites, and others listed
in the new Rural Development Regulation (RDR).
Currently, the UK Government plans to redirect only 2.5 per cent of conventional production payments, rising to 4.5 per cent by 2005. This is grossly inadequate given the economic, social and environmental benefits that flow from modulating subsidies away from Soviet style production targets toward payments that encourage the environmental modernisation of the farm sector and crops/food that people want to eat.
Modulation allows for a far fairer distribution of subsidy between farmers. At present just 20 per cent of farmers receive some 80 per cent of subsidies. Most of these beneficiaries are large arable farms in the south and east or England. Yet these farmers are the least in need of support. Modulation of subsidies through the RDR offers a real opportunity to target payments to small, low input farms that are delivering environmental and local economic benefits.
Modulation also allows for an increase in support for organic farming, in response to the increasing demand for organic food from consumers and from farmers to convert to this sustainable farming practice. At present Government support for organic farming is only 0.2 per cent of agricultural spending, and fails to meet these demands by a considerable margin. If the level of support is not raised, the increased demand for organic produce will continue to be met by imports from EU nations that have provided adequate support. Already the UK imports 70% of organic food consumed here.
Modulation enables farmers to reverse the environmental damage caused by the intensive farming methods encouraged by conventional production subsidies. Directing subsidies to farmers through schemes that deliver environmental protection will enhance our countryside and wildlife, and boost tourism. Schemes like this operating in the UK have already been shown to increase farm productivity, and create jobs both on farms and in the local economy.
Finally modulation can strengthen and diversify local rural economies through funding for schemes that: encourage production and processing of farm products, such as food and sustainable timber, back to rural areas; develop the potential for farms to grow energy crops; and, increase support for training and new enterprises in rural economies. Small farms tend to have a more positive impact upon local businesses as they are more likely to buy inputs locally. Organic farming has also been shown to both increase on-farm employment, and, crucially, to increase employment in the local economy through increased preparation, processing and marketing of food products. Generally, organic farms employ between 10-30% more people than conventional farms.
Environmental management schemes increase on-farm employment through the need for environmental maintenance work and increased demand for materials and services from the local economy. Small, mixed farms managed in harmony with the environment also create and maintain landscapes that are more attractive to tourism than large-scale, intensive monocultures.
In its Election manifesto, New Labour promised to "reform the Common Agricultural Policy to save money, support the rural economy and enhance the environment". Modulation offers them exactly that opportunity and the Government's refusal to make more of this provision is incomprehensible. The longer they stall on these reforms, the worse it will be for farmers, rural communities and the environment.
FOE therefore calls on the Chancellor to announce a new programme of shifting public investment in farming and rural economies away from production subsidies and toward measures included in the RDR. This programme will see the UK utilising the full 20 per cent modulation limit by 2005 in a strategy that will provide support to small farmers, strengthen and diversify local rural economies, increase environmental protection and expand organic production in the face of increasing demand.
In order to ensure a well-designed strategy, the Chancellor should consult on how to design the rolling programme of investment measures that will meet this target of 20 per cent modulation by 2005. The UK already has schemes in operation that provide evidence of what works and what does not, and the modulation programmes in other EU member states also can offer insights. The consultation should be concluded to allow the Chancellor to release full details of the strategy no later than the PBR in November 2000.
PROTECTING THE COUNTRYSIDE AND ENCOURAGING URBAN REGENERATION
The prudent use of our land resource is central to sustainable development. At present large areas of inner cities are un- or under-developed, because it suits the owner to speculate on their existing dilapidated or empty condition. Additionally, the pressure for additional housing, and out-of-town business development leads to urban and suburban sprawl and alarming rates of biodiversity loss, countryside destruction and traffic growth - the fastest rising source of greenhouse gases.
Business-as-usual practices can only meet the forecast 4.4 million extra households by 2016 by using up 80,000 hectares of greenfield sites. FOE research has shown how to meet the demand by filling empty homes, converting empty commercial property, reusing derelict land and increasing population densities in redevelopment. The current tax system, however, favours more sprawl and greenfield site destruction. Not only is the refurbishment of empty properties still taxed more heavily than new-build housing, but the owners of derelict urban sites are charged little in taxes until business rates start to apply once they clear and develop the site. To make matters worse, the owners of greenfield land, once granted permission for housing development, not only pocket the windfall increase in land value when sold, but also suck up roll-over tax relief on capital gains.
Remove capital gains tax roll-over relief on unearned income from the sale of greenfield development land.
At present some 30,000 acres of farmland is lost every year to become development land. When farming land is allocated for development under Local Structure Plans the landowners benefit from uplifted values from around £2,000-£3,000 per acre as farmland to £100,000 - £1 million per acre as development land. On top of this they can also claim 100% roll over relief on this unearned capital gain given to them free by the planning system where they buy new farming businesses.
This unjustified tax break for landowners is estimated to cost more than £1 billion in lost public revenue. The windfall gain for these landowners is so great that they can buy several whole farms elsewhere on the proceeds of selling one or acres. This can damage rural economies through increasing concentration in the farming sector which reduces the need for local goods and services.
Invite bids from local authorities for up to five pilot schemes to shift local taxation from business rates to land value taxation.
Land Value Taxation (LVT) would be a powerful incentive to sustainably reuse, redevelop and refurbish land and buildings. It would remove the current tax exemption enjoyed by landowners who leave land derelict and provide an incentive for clearing and decontaminating land. Together with strong planning regulations, LVT would ensure that landowners did not receive windfall gains from the re-zoning of land under planning regulations. This would reduce the incentive to convert countryside and farmland.
A tax on land value presents an opportunity to replace unfair taxes such as uniform business rate and council tax with a far fairer one, and one which cannot be easily avoided or passed on. It is a tax that would reinforce the goals of urban regeneration, social inclusion and the prudent use of a vital natural resource, while bringing administrative and revenue collection gains. Local authorities should be given the opportunity to pilot such systems in the UK.
INCREASING RECYCLING AND REMOVING TAX INCENTIVES FOR WASTE INCINERATION
The Government has recognised that our economy is grossly inefficient in its use of material resources. Both Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have statements of intent that aim to increase resource-use productivity. At present the profligate use of resources leads to high levels of waste most of which is buried or burnt rather than re-used or recycled.
Despite the Prime Minister's aim of every local authority offering doorstep recycling and some new money being made available for that purpose, taxation still offers little incentive to invest in recycling but substantial tax breaks for waste incineration.
Overhauling the taxation of waste disposal is an urgent task that the Chancellor should address in Budget 2001. At present the signals coming from the Treasury are at best confused - they should be clear and coherent. The following reforms would go some way to providing proper incentives for recycling and removing the current bias in favour of incineration.
Extend the Landfill Tax to incineration.
When the Landfill Tax was introduced it was hailed as a move to "taxing waste not jobs". Yet waste incineration remains totally exempt from the tax. This means that the tax provides an incentive to divert waste disposal from one route, landfill, to another, incineration. Any incentive for waste producers to minimise waste or recycle is undermined by this exemption.
Treasury's concern that the administrative costs of removing this exemption would be high given the small number of incinerators in operation. Yet the Government's waste strategy has already increased the number of local authorities planning to use incineration. The Chancellor should move now to remove the exemption before investments are made that undermine efforts to increase recycling.
Remove the tax break for inefficient incinerators within the Climate Change Levy package.
Energy supplied from waste incinerators that operate with defined ‘good quality' combined heat and power (CHP) is exempt from the Climate Change Levy under the provisions for CHP. As things stand at present energy from incinerators with poor, bad or appalling CHP plant will also be exempt because energy from waste is perversely included in the list of renewable energy that is exempt from the Levy.
Scrap the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and redirect this £xx of revenue to recycling and composting.
Government attempts at reforming the credit scheme to increase support for recycling have failed. A key reason for this is the corporate control of the scheme. Shifting the reinvestment of this portion of the tax revenues to public expenditure would allow for the vital investments in recycling and composting to be made.
Increase the Landfill Tax escalator from £1 per year to £2 per year immediately and to £4 per year from 2004 to increase its effectiveness in reducing waste and increasing recycling.
The current escalator is a useful mechanism for increasing the incentive to reduce waste and recycle in a way that allows businesses to adjust in a planned way. But it is too slow. Waste taxes in many other European countries are set far higher than the current escalator will reach by 2004. The waste industry indicates that a much higher rate is required to significantly impact upon a wide range of waste producers.
Consult on options for a Landfill Tax Rebate Scheme for local authorities that provides a strong incentive to recycle.
If a proportion of the landfill tax revenues raised from local authorities is refunded to them according to their recycling rate then all local authorities have a dynamic incentive to increase the tonnage of waste they recycle and compost. No authority would pay more than the tax in full but those who recycle above the national average rate would benefit most. This measure would make a strong contribution to achieving the Prime Ministers goal of "every local authority offering doorstep recycling".
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
March 2001
Policy and Research Unit
Last modified: June 2001
