Opinion divided over WEEE proposals

With just under two weeks until the governments WEEE consultation draws to a conclusion, opinions are still sharply divided over which of the proposed options should be pursued.

Polls taken at conferences on the consultation in London and Leeds hosted by waste management firm WasteCare show that while there appears to support for change from some sectors, none of the three new options proposed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have overall backing.

The consultation which began on April 17 and ends on June 21, outlines four proposed options for the future of the WEEE system, including:

• Option 1: No change and continue with the current system;
• Option 2: Introduce a National Producer Compliance Scheme, instead of competition between current compliance schemes;
• Option 3: Setting targets for compliance schemes along with a compliance fee if these are not met, instead of the trading of WEEE evidence data between collection schemes, and;
• Option 4: Matching collection sites to compliance schemes.

Option 1, which is less favoured by the government, came out on top of the ballot at both events.

Producers of electrical goods have called for changes to the system claiming that the cost involved in complying with their current obligations to recycle waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is far higher than the actual cost of recycling. At the same time local authorities believe they should be paid for providing a free collection service at DCFs.

And, speaking at the WasteCare conference in London yesterday (June 11), Jonathan Perry, take back compliance consultant for IT producer Dell, repeated this view, adding that ultimately high compliance costs are passed on to consumers.

He said: We need to get away from the view that producers can just pay because ultimately it is the general public that pays as well. As the producer we want to reduce the cost so we can avoid putting any further burdens on anyone else.

We shouldnt disregard the work done to put this consultation in place particularly when we have an opportunity to reduce the costs.

But, doubt was cast over whether there is a need to revamp the system from local authorities, represented at the conferences by Fred Twiddy, waste services manager for Bradford council, who said he felt there was very little wrong with option 1.

He added: Dont be messing about trying to re-invent the wheel, just make the amendments [those required under the WEEE recast] necessary.

ICER

Meanwhile, Claire Snow, director at the Industry Council for Electronics Recycling (ICER), which represents producers, retailers, waste management firms, WEEE recyclers and compliance schemes, said the group had yet to reach agreement on a favoured option.

She added: Some of our members feel that if we cant agree on anything we should be silent. Different stakeholders have different views, and from the producer perspective there needs to be change – as soon as you start to think that you are never going to be happy.

At the earlier session in Leeds, David Styles of BIS explained that the options are not set in stone, and that if anyone wanted to put variations forward through the consultation, he would like to hear from them, particularly for option 1, adding: we are not minded to pursue it with the costs shown in the Impact Assessement unless someone gives us a good idea.”

Mr Styles also noted that the current system discourages producers switching between compliance schemes because of the obligation they brought with them and they might then not have access to enough evidence without paying large amounts for it.

Proposals

Concluding the sessions, WasteCare Group’s chief executive Peter Hunt put forward his proposals for an amended version of option 1, which would seek to address some of the issues raised by producers, and which he claimed would result in net benefits to local authorities and the waste sector.

In his proposals, Mr Hunt said a de minimis threshold should be set which would exempt small producers of electronics from being made to comply, a removal of the distinction between business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) WEEE and a reduction in the registration fee charged to producers.

Meanwhile, he said that the cost of compliance for each scheme operating in the sector should be made public, to increase transparency within the system. Dubbed WEEE1 +, the proposal tackles the Guaranteed Demand model which it is claimed adds excessive costs to WEEE compliance in the UK as well as providing more competition amongst schemes.