The process is continuing behind closed doors, moving on from the original three options from the government's August consultation paper (see letsrecycle.com story). However, there is some frustration in the industry at the slow progression of the consultation.
“We're still a long way from a solution,” David Hulse, director general of the British Metals Recycling Association, told letsrecycle.com. “There's a lot of good will on all sides, but we don't want to bear responsibility, car makers don't want to either, the DTI is trying to find the middle ground and in the mean time, nothing's really happening.”
The original three options put forward by the government were not well-received by either the recyclers or the vehicle manufacturers, so the car manufacturers came up with 'option 4' and the recyclers suggested a revised option 1, 'option 1a'.
Option four, put by the car manufacturers, suggested that scrap metal firms were getting so much money from their scrap that they should fund the ELV implementation system. Option 1a, suggested by the BMRA, opted for a Producer Responsibility system with a central body set up to oversee the right structure for the service providers.
After external consultation the government came back with 'option 5'. This option is though to focus on a form of recovery note system similar to that found in packaging. It is thought that the factions on both sides of the ELV debate thought this idea had some merit, although in its current form it is still felt there are some drawbacks.
Delay
But according to Mr Hulse, the major problem with the whole process is the delay in setting up an adequate funding system before producer responsibility is due to come into force in 2007.
“It's an absolute nonsense situation,” Mr Hulse said. “The biggest problem isn't these options, our biggest problem is what happens until 2007. We've so far received no assurances of how it will work until producer responsibility comes in after 2006. We can't encourage our members to invest in facilities because they'd; go bankrupt.”
Frustrated that any decision on the right option for UK ELV implementation would probably not come into affect before Spring 2004, Mr Hulse explained: “If local authorities are going to pick up the cost of abandoned vehicles, you don't know if you're going to get the contract or not. There's too much uncertainty, there's no confidence in our industry ahead of the regulations – and we've already been bitten by the fridge crisis.”
The BMRA director general said that if the government went with their option 1a, the system could be in place “today”, but because they are looking to conciliate with the motor industry, the government is not likely to implement a system soon.
Despite the BMRA's anxiety, there is also a view among some of those involved in preparing the proposals that there must be sufficient competion in delivering a solution to dealing with end-of-life vehicles. The DTI is thought to have been made aware of continuing concerns from the car industry that there is a relatively small number of shredder operators who will receive the end-of-life vehicles.
Subscribe for free