Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Waste management · United Kingdom · 2022–2026

UK anaerobic digestion gate fees and the Hanford-Stoke dispute

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

In the United Kingdom, the fee that councils pay anaerobic digestion plants to take food and garden waste fell from a median of £24 to £13 per tonne, and new contracts signed from April 2022 had a negative median. Separately, an energy-from-waste operator at Hanford asked Stoke-on-Trent City Council for about £650,000 over waste it did not deliver.

£13 per tonneMedian UK anaerobic digestion gate fee
Median across UK anaerobic digestion contracts in a July 2026 compilation; ten fees were negative. New contracts starting in April 2022 had a median of -£15 per tonne.

Status As of July 2026: UK AD median gate fee £13 per tonne with ten negative; no outcome found for the £650,000 Stoke-on-Trent claim.

What?
UK gate fees for anaerobic digestion of food waste fell until the median was £13 per tonne, with some fees negative, while an EfW operator at Hanford asked Stoke-on-Trent City Council for about £650,000 for a delivery shortfall under a put-or-pay type contract. letsrecycle
Where?
United Kingdom; the Hanford EfW facility and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. letsrecycle
When?
Gate fee data from 2022 to July 2026; Stoke claim reported 2023–2024.
Who?
Gained
  • Councils sending food waste to AD plants — Lower or negative gate fees as plants compete for feedstock.
  • Hanford EfW operator — Requested about £650,000 from Stoke-on-Trent City Council. letsrecycle
Lost
  • Stoke-on-Trent City Council — Faced a request for about £650,000. letsrecycle
  • AD plant operators — Gate fee income fell and revenue at new plants shifted to energy and subsidy.
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The sources reviewed record that, as competition for feedstock increased between 2022 and 2026, gate fees fell and in some cases reversed; put-or-pay clauses in long contracts bind councils to minimum tonnages.
How?
AD plants and EfW plants are paid per tonne accepted; put-or-pay clauses charge councils for tonnage not delivered. letsrecycle
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

A gate fee is the price per tonne that a waste owner, usually a council, pays a treatment plant to accept waste. Councils in the United Kingdom send separately collected food and garden waste to anaerobic digestion (AD) plants, which turn it into biogas and digestate, and send residual waste to energy-from-waste (EfW) plants, landfill or other routes.

In a July 2026 compilation of UK gate fees, the median AD gate fee was £13 per tonne, with ten fees negative. The same compilation gave £66 for in-vessel composting, £34 for landfill plus a landfill tax of £126.15, and £182 for EfW. The record states that the AD median fell from £24 to £13 per tonne, and that new AD contracts starting in April 2022 had a median of -£15 per tonne. In 2025/26, 12 councils had zero or negative gate fees.

The sources reviewed show the income of AD plants moving away from the gate fee. A 2003–04 model of the Holsworthy plant put the gate fee at 20–27% of revenue and electricity at 73–80%, and its authors wrote that electricity and heat sales alone were not enough. An operator of the Greenfinch plant said its gate fee income was 675 thousand against 300 thousand from electricity, about 69% of revenue. The sources record that, as fees fell, revenue at new plants shifted to energy and subsidy, and that the Green Gas Support Scheme was extended to 2028.

The other side of a long waste contract is a put-or-pay clause, under which a council pays for a minimum tonnage whether or not it delivers it. letsrecycle reported that the operator of an energy-from-waste facility at Hanford asked Stoke-on-Trent City Council for about £650,000 because it sent less waste than contracted. The record notes that councils in the Belfast area (arc21) committed 80% of their estimated residual waste under such terms.

  1. 2004Holsworthy AD plant model: gate fee 20–27% of revenue, electricity 73–80%
  2. 2022New AD contracts starting in April 2022 have a median gate fee of -£15 per tonne
  3. 2024Hanford EfW operator asks Stoke-on-Trent City Council for about £650,000 for a delivery shortfall (reported 2023–2024)
  4. 2026UK AD median gate fee £13 per tonne; ten negative; Green Gas Support Scheme extended to 2028

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • UK AD gate fee: median £13 per tonne, ten fees negative (July 2026 compilation); in-vessel composting £66, landfill £34 plus £126.15 tax, EfW £182
    • New AD contracts from April 2022: median gate fee -£15 per tonne
    • In 2025/26, 12 councils had zero or negative AD gate fees
    • Hanford EfW operator asked Stoke-on-Trent City Council for about £650,000 for delivering less waste than contracted
    • Holsworthy (2003–04 model): gate fee 20–27% of revenue, electricity 73–80%; operating cost £450,000 a year

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Median UK AD gate fee
    £13/t
    Down from £24; new contracts from April 2022 at -£15
    Stoke-on-Trent shortfall claim
    About £650,000
    Requested by the Hanford EfW operator for waste not delivered

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that Stoke-on-Trent City Council could not tell whether the fall in its waste was due to its own recycling work or to the economic downturn.
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that a UK parliamentary committee wrote that such contracts worry it because of their effect on recycling rates.
    • None on record The sources reviewed do not say whether Stoke-on-Trent City Council paid the amount requested, or how the claim was settled.
    • None on record The sources reviewed do not give a currency for the Greenfinch figures of 675 thousand and 300 thousand.
    • None on record No court or regulatory proceeding is recorded in the sources reviewed.

    Did the harm stop?

    Who paid?

    The sources reviewed record a request that Stoke-on-Trent City Council pay about £650,000 for a delivery shortfall; they do not say whether it paid. On gate fees, the record shows councils paying less, and in some cases nothing or being paid, to AD plants.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

    Researchers

    1. Case study Holsworthy
      Strathclyde ESRU · 2004