But, there remains a level of uncertainty in local authorities over whether they or their contractors could lose out by hundreds of thousands of pounds if the WEEE evidence system fails to deliver.
The two figures should be in balance but if there is more accounted for as actually recycled, there would then be a surplus of evidence for sale which could see prices fall or some evidence notes remain unsold.
The obligation on producer compliances schemes who have to buy the evidence is based on a share-out of the tonnages accounted as for being sent for recycling, principally from civic amenity sites.
While BERR is hoping that the two sets of data will be more in alignment when a review concludes on Friday, in the interim it has issued a statement to producer compliance schemes – who buy evidence that WEEE from household sources has been recycled.
BERR statement
The statement, from the BERR official dealing with the WEEE system, says: “Evidence trading via the Settlement Centre has now been taking place since the beginning of April, and to date schemes have sold around 39,000 tonnes of evidence, and local authorities 1,900 tonnes. Despite this successful trading, the recent press coverage about the delayed publication of schemes' final collection obligations, has prompted a number local authorities to contact us expressing concern that they will not find a buyer for their evidence.”
The BERR statement continues: “Some are also worried that they will not recover the costs they have incurred in having WEEE treated. Before any further trading of local authority evidence takes place, I am writing to remind schemes that the price of local authority evidence should be, not what schemes are prepared to pay, but the costs that local authorities have incurred, provided these are legitimate producer costs, and those costs can be substantiated. I am writing separately to all local authorities with Settlement Centre accounts to make this clear.”
Different views on the current situation exist among compliance scheme and councils. One scheme said that local authorities who had not signed up to a compliance scheme and who were in effect “going-it-alone” often had higher costs for transport and recycling and so schemes should not have to pay these councils high rates for their evidence notes.
Among local authorities there are concerns over a number of issues, notably concerning: Repic and Electrolink; higher costs faced by more remote authorities; unaligned authorities; and the potential surplus on the Settlement Exchange.
letsrecycle.com contacted a number of county authorities across the UK and all commented on the fact that Electrolink has a large number of councils in its membership and Repic had few councils but needed to buy lots of evidence. One council with Electrolink said: “We believe this was all resolved a month ago but now know that our contractor still has some concerns.”
Another observed that for some local authorities substantial costs are at risk. “Consider the millions that BERR had to pay up to cover our hazardous waste costs before the WEEE system was put in place.”
Arms-length
Some authorities consider that they have satisfactory arrangements in place because of arms-length contracts. One said: “Our contractor said that if they did not get paid, they would have to stop collecting WEEE but they do have a legally binding contract with us to provide the service.”
Ray Greenall, waste and recycling director for Hertfordshire county council speaking for the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers, said: “We would have some concern for those local authorities who have not aligned themselves with compliance schemes and also for the remote ones who will be losers in the market if there is a surplus.”
Other authorities noted more thefts from mixed WEEE, particularly of cable because of high metal prices, less fridges arising at CA sites because more are being collected on take-back schemes and some confusion by the Environment Agency over how WEEE should be stored at CA sites.
Register for free to comment