Producer compliance schemes for the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) sector have differing views over the future of the compliance system in the UK.
Representatives from four of the UKs compliance schemes, Repic, Valpak, ERP and Electrolink, debated proposed changes to the WEEE system during a discussion session at the Reshaping the WEEE Regulations conference, hosted by letsrecycle.com yesterday (April 2).
While representatives of Repic, Valpak and ERP all spoke out in favour of making changes to the system, Barry Van Danzig, chief executive of Electrolink, described the ongoing consultation into amendments to the regulations as flawed.
The changes are being proposed to incorporate the terms of the Recast of the WEEE Directive, and, according to the Department for Business, also to address concerns by producers of electronic equipment that the current arrangement does not represent the actual cost of recycling.
Options
A consultation on the proposed changes was launched last month, in which BIS sets out its four options for the future of compliance. These options include:
- No change and continue with the current system;
- Introduce a National Producer Compliance Scheme, instead of competition between current compliance schemes;
- Setting targets for compliance schemes along with a compliance fee if these are not met, instead of the trading of WEEE evidence data between collection schemes, and;
- Matching collection sites to collection schemes.
The event saw a range of schemes invited to give their early thoughts in response to the consultation which closes next month.
Repic chief executive Dr Philip Morton opened the session, and commented that he felt there was a broad consensus in favour of making changes to the current system, which he described as flawed.
He said: I think there is positive recognition that the current WEEE system is unsustainable, and the case for change has been well made. Options three and four seem sensible for stakeholders. Change is essential to restore balance because the current system is unbalanced and doesnt deliver the expected outcome.”
And, commenting on the proposals, Dr Morton said that they were likely to address the concerns of producers over the cost of compliance, as they would prevent evidence trading which he said, was caused by profiteering from schemes. He noted that options three and four were likely to be the most workable options for change.
Changes
Adrian Hawkes, director of policy for WEEE compliance scheme Valpak agreed that there was a need for change, but warned against unintended consequences which could arise from radical changes to the system.
He said: The Recast does demand an element of change, and there are issues in the current system that need to be dealt with but we need to balance that with the benefits that the current system has brought us.
And, Mr Hawkes added that there is a need to balance the need to reduce the regulatory burden on producers in complying with the regulations, with the interests of other stakeholders in the chain.
However, in his presentation, Mr Van Danzig rejected the proposals put forward by the government, arguing that their ultimate aim is to drive down the cost of recycling, and added that the current system is the cheapest available to producers.
He said: The proposed fundamental shift in law is to place the unobligated recycler and local authority at financial risk in order to reduce the cost of WEEE to the obligated producer, and for what? So that large non UK companies can benefit whilst UK tax paying companies can pick up the bill.
Cost
Meanwhile, he said that a continual downward pressure on prices would be likely to lead to poorer treatment standards, and ultimately a significant increase in the amount of WEEE being exported illegally.
He added that he thought that BIS would struggle with the legal wording to develop the new legislation, describing the proposals as unlawful, and said that he felt the only option the government could safely choose would be to leave the current system unchanged.
But, Scott Butler, managing director of ERP, countered Mr Van Danzigs claims and said that he felt that the need for change is clear arguing that very few people are happy with the current system. He also said that options three and four are most likely to achieve the governments aim of reducing the cost of compliance for producers.
He noted that the British compliance system had built itself around the cost of evidence for recycling, which had no relation to anything else that has gone behind it.
Earlier in the day, the conference heard from business minister Michael Fallon (see letsrecycle.com story) who urged stakeholders to contribute to the ongoing consultation into the proposals which is due to end on June 21.
Register for free to comment