A number of short-term measures to increase transparency in the WEEE system have been unveiled by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
These include plans to publish details of producer compliance schemes WEEE recycling obligations so that producers and local authorities can judge whether they are at risk of over or under-collecting WEEE.
The announcement of the short-term measures follows the departments pledge as part of the red tape challenge to address concerns raised by producers about the costs of compliance compared with the actual costs of collection, treatment and recycling of WEEE.
Producer Compliance Schemes were informed of the measures by the departments deputy director of green economy Chris Pook in a letter sent out on Friday (July 20). The interim measures precede the governments transposition of the WEEE Recast into UK law, which is expected to happen by January 2014.
Transparency
In his letter, Mr Pook explained that more transparency was needed as local authorities currently have no visibility of the obligations and collection arrangements that producer compliance schemes (PCSs) had in place, meaning that they were unable to judge the extent to which a schemes bidding for collection contracts needed the tonnage.
And, he said that producers do not know the amount of WEEE the PCSs collect themselves or collect through trading with other schemes. It is hoped that publishing the additional information will help producers identify which PCS they should use to meet their obligations.
BIS has also revealed that the Environment Agency will publish an annual statement to include a summary of enforcement actions taken against compliance schemes, following its review of declarations of compliance submitted by the schemes each year.
Burden
In order to reduce the administrative burden on PCSs, BIS has also removed a requirement for schemes to meet their obligation to the nearest kilogram, instead proposing that schemes report their obligation to the nearest tonne for the 2012 compliance year.
BIS is also inviting views from schemes on proposals to amend the Viable Plan Process, which requires them to produce and maintain a plan prior to each compliance period on how they will meet their obligation. The department has outlined a number of changes that will reduce the burden on schemes when producing the plan, and aims to give them more flexibility to manage their own operations.
The department is also suggesting that PCSs agree to the insertion of a common clause in contract arrangements for a standard arbitration process in the event that two schemes disagree over the cost of evidence. This is however a non compulsory measure, and schemes have a choice as to whether they opt-in or not.
Arbitration
But, BIS has revealed that it is looking into the introduction of a compulsory arbitration service, which it says would prevent schemes from charging excessive amounts or refusing to pay reasonable prices for evidence from other schemes.
Compliance schemes were contacted in April for views on a number of options that BIS had been considering. These included the suggestion that data from a previous compliance year be used to set the obligations for the current year in order to reduce uncertainty around tonnage obligations and help producers pay a more accurate amount.
However, in the letter to schemes, Mr Pook said the department has opted not to choose this option among the short-term measures, as it believes that it could present potential loopholes for producers registering for the first time, leading to an increase in the level of obligation for the remaining producers.
Related Links
BIS issued a call for evidence in May, seeking views from compliance schemes and producers on the cost of compliance, to see if they are achieving best value (see letsrecycle.com story), the consultation period for which ended today (July 23).
Register for free to comment