Single scheme backed for batteries

It states: “WRAP believes that the relatively small weight of batteries which will need to be collected to meet the 2012 collection rate target (estimated to be between 5000 and 7500 tonnes per annum) does not warrant the establishment of multiple compliance schemes, and the considerably increased administration burden which could be required for large numbers of schemes.”

At the same time, it stresses the importance of the schedule for meeting the Directive's targets, explaining that: “The time period allowed for achievement of the 25% and 45% targets is short. Multiple compliance schemes may view competitive advantage as preferable to the achievement of targets in the short to medium term.”

Simplicity

The Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, LARAC, also backs the idea of a single scheme, arguing that “simplicity is the key”.

“Multiple schemes may offer the element of competition but this system could lead to different collection schemes, leading to higher communication costs to explain the multiple costs on offer,” it explains.

Similarly, the Local Government Association, LGA, advocates a single compliance scheme, claiming that it would benefit both producers and local authorities.

The LGA consultation response reveals that “local authorities favour a single compliance scheme because they believe it will help producers keep costs down”.

“This is because the single compliance system would allow for a negotiated or brokered approach between producers and the many councils in England whereby councils can help producers discharge their duty at low cost,” it adds.

Collections

The issue of the methods that should be used to collect batteries to meet the requirements of the Directive has attracted particular debate in recent months (see letsrecycle.com story), and the consultation responses reveal continued differences of opinion.

Despite concerns over kerbside collections, LARAC's response reveals support for the method as part of a mixed approach to the issue.

“An element of kerbside collections will be needed at (arguably) greater cost, in order for targets to be met,” it argues. “A compliance scheme needs to be able to select and control the mix of options that are needed for targets to be achieved.”

Advising against relying purely on collections from civic amenity sites, it instead suggests using locations such as schools and libraries as potential collection points.

Mixed collection methods also win support from WRAP, with the organisation citing its involvement in trials of kerbside collection of batteries (see letsrecycle.com story) as evidence of their effectiveness.

“Kerbside has proved particularly effective as it is both relatively easy to introduce and appears to be the preferred method for many householders according to our research,” it states.

“We also believe that the mix will be different in different areas as some collection routes will not be readily available in some areas, or will not be cost-effective (for example a postal scheme in an urban area).”

However, WRAP warns of the cost to producers that kerbside schemes might entail, adding that “we must stress that kerbside collection is not free of cost”.

“Some local authorities appear to have absorbed costs (for example management and staff costs) during the trial schemes as part of their local commitment to the trial; however it must not be assumed that this would be acceptable once producer responsibility is established.”

The issue of cost has led the LGA to express its doubts over kerbside collections (see letsrecycle.com story), and its response to the consultation reiterates that view.

As well as revealing concerns over the possible contamination of other materials from batteries collected in commingled kerbside collections, it calls for the establishment of a “network” of consumer drop-off points to keep costs down.

“Systems which collect large quantities of batteries from strategic drop-off points in a range of collections including retail outlets, schools, offices etc. – with infrequent collections or otherwise collections only when there is a large enough quantity to pick up…will be cheaper than kerbside collection systems which involve large numbers of pick-ups for small numbers of batteries,” it argues.

Targets

Both LARAC and WRAP offer clear support for the idea of interim targets to allow the UK to meet its battery collection goals, with LARAC emphasising the benefits that it believes a single scheme would play.

However, it avoids recommending specific interim goals, or definite action to be taken if the compliance scheme fails to meet its targets.

On the other hand, WRAP outlines a series of targets to increase the UK's current portable battery collection rate of 3%, calling for a rate of 8% by 2009, 14% by 2010 and 20% by 2011.

It also calls for a system of fines to be introduced, stating that: “If interim targets are not met then a series of fines should be imposed on the compliance scheme.

“It should be a requirement of membership that these fines are passed on to those producers who are members of the scheme during the year that the interim target is not met,” it adds.

The UK is set to introduce producer responsibility for battery collections under the Directive at the end of September.