In a strongly worded letter to Sheila McKinley, Defra’s head of producer responsibility, Bruce Terrell of London-based Atlantic Paper and Community Waste has claimed that policies of the agencies – Defra, the Environment Agency and their counterparts in other parts of the UK – suggest they are biased in favour of domestic reprocessors compared to exporters.
Mr Terrell’s concerns come after the decision by the Environment Agency to restrict registration of overseas reprocessors – businesses such as paper mills and users of reclaimed plastic bottles in China, India and elsewhere. The Agency introduced a rule that requires exporters to name all the companies they are sending material to during a calendar year by the end of September in the previous year.
Listed
This means that only reprocesssors abroad who were listed by September 30 2004 can receive recycled material from the UK during 2005 under the packaging waste system. While UK exporters could send material to reprocessors not listed by this date, they would not be able to receive an export packaging waste recovery note which can be worth from 10-50.
”Maybe it is also the self-interest of UK manufacturing that drives the Government to disadvantage exporters..“
– Bruce Terrell – Atlantic Paper
Mr Terrell reasons that this is a restraint of trade and distorts free-trade. Defra and the Agency brought in the date as one of the measures to reduce the potential for fraud. Last year there were a number of cases of fraud or inappropriate issuing of PRNs. Mr Terrell said he agreed that anti-fraud measures were needed but the approach was hurting genuine exporters.
Within the recovered paper sector his concerns have received a mixed response. One industry expert said that companies should generally know who they are exporting to and that the Agency had in the past allowed some exemptions when full details were provided.
Confusion
Others remarked that the Agency had caused confusion. One said: “In the past we have been able to send a directory showing all the mills known to the Agency and they have said this was acceptable. We have now been told that this approach will be rescinded.”
The full text of Mr Terrell’s letter is shown below:
Dear Mrs McKinley,
It is an anomaly that Government Agencies are perfectly willing to consult on PRN legislation with waste paper industry bodies such as CPI and IWPPA , as well as Compliance schemes via Coswig and the mainly Compliance-based ACP, whereas Exporters continue to be marginalised. Given the fact that reprocessing capacity in the UK is declining and the UK recycling targets are rising, it is reasonable to predict that all the growth in reprocessing UK material must occur overseas – at least in the short term. In fact, this view is quite uncontroversial and generally accepted. The UK has now overtaken previously dominant Germany as the main European exporter of waste paper, for example.
Therefore it is an injustice that the legitimate views of UK Exporters are not sought explicitly at the consultation phase. Not only that, but there is apparently no mechanism whereby Exporters can appeal retrospectively against unfair laws or – as seems more accurately to describe the current situation – against the unfair interpretation of laws by Government Agencies. This is also incomprehensible to me. Maybe it is a “politically-correct” dislike of exports of recyclables in Government circles that gives rise to this bias against us. Maybe it is also the self-interest of UK manufacturing that drives the Government to disadvantage exporters at the consultation stages. Whatever the reasons, recent developments have now made it urgent that we Exporters are heard.
Continued on page 2
Subscribe for free