The amendment to the Regulations aims to give the Environment Agency more discretion in deciding whether packaging sent overseas for recycling has been reprocessed to standards 'broadly equivalent' to those in the UK. If this rule is met, the metal packaging – usually cans and containers – becomes eligible for an export PRN note to be issued (see letsrecycle.com story).
A significant percentage of steel and aluminium packaging recycling takes place overseas, and the notes issued are known as PERNs (Packaging Export Recycling Notes). Defra had previously been warned that the tough requirements could have made it hard for the UK to meet its packaging recycling targets (see letsrecycle.com story). 
And, one leading metals exporter told letsrecycle.com that uncertainty over whether the amendment would be passed had meant that, while metals had still been exported overseas for reprocessing this year, PERNs had not yet been issued for it.
He suggested that this situation was unlikely to be resolved until the Environment Agency issued the guidance to clarify exactly what the practical implications of the amendment would be its enforcement of the 'broadly equivalent' requirement.
And, he added that, with major metals exporters not selling PERNs yet, compliance schemes were also waiting to see just what practical impact the decision would have.
While a spokeswoman for the Environment Agency was unable to reveal details of what the guidance would entail, she did confirm that “at the moment, it's just going to be for metals”.
She also indicated publication of the guidance was imminent. “The final draft is going around the Agency and should be published in the first week of August,” she told letsrecycle.com.
Trading
The passing of the amendment was welcomed by Duncan Simpson, commercial manager for Valpak, operator of one of the UK's largest packaging producer compliance schemes.
“We think it's a good thing because it allows trading to take place,” he told letsrecycle.com. “If it wasn't passed there'd be a problem on hitting aluminium and steel targets. It means it helps to reduce the administration required without increasing the environmental risk.”
However, he questioned whether the amendment would be introduced in such a way that it could apply to metals that had already been exported overseas this year.
Backdating
“The big question is 'can it be backdated?',” Mr Simpson asked. “Would people like EMR and Sims be able to do that for the period from January to June when they were still exporting?”
In the past Defra has indicated that backdating of approvals was unlikely to occur. Following up its own consultation document on “broadly equivalent”, last month the Department said: “It is not legal to perform an operation under one regulatory regime and then amend the outcome using conditions from legislation issued after that operation has taken place.”
However, the Environment Agency may take a different view, especially as its work is focused on checking of records and standards through paper means, rather than actually visiting the countries concerned.
Alupro
Passing of the technical amendment by Parliament was also warmly received by the aluminium packaging recycling organisation, Alupro, with the aluminium sector under strong pressure to deliver on its packaging recycling obligation. Executive director Rick Hindley said: “We are very pleased that this issue has been resolved before the Parliamentary recess.
“There was never any question of seeking to lower environmental standards – which we are very keen should be upheld – but simply about the difficulties of administration in a complex and highly competitive global market,” he explained.
“We believe that the amendment will result in stability for the reporting system for metal packaging recycling, enabling the correct targets to be set, and achieved, as we move beyond 2008,” he added.
Register for free to comment