Scheme Forum plans for WEEE changes

WEEE compliance scheme body the WEEE Scheme Forum is seeking to become more closely involved with the administration of new regulations around WEEE recycling in the UK.

The Forum, which represents 26 of the 38 producer compliance schemes in the UK, has announced that it is preparing an offer to act as the operator of a Producer Takeback Scheme or to administer the allocation of collection facilities to schemes, as set out in two of the governments four options for the future of the WEEE system.

Members of the WEEE Scheme Forum include B2B Compliance, Budget Pack, C10C, DHL Exel, ERP, Recolight, REPIC, Transform, Valpak and WEEEComply.

Yesterday (May 8) the Forum announced that it had begun the process of registering as a separate legal entity from its members, in order to make it available for either of the roles, depending on how the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) opts to change the WEEE system.

The Department has outlined four possible 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.

The consultation began last month and ends on June 21, with the government planning to publish its response within eight weeks (see letsrecycle.com story). The new regulations are expected to come into force from January 1 2014, with guidance notes set to be available at least 10 weeks before.

Proposals

Should BIS opt for option three, it is likely that it would establish a voluntary producer takeback scheme which would be set up to minimise the risks of PCSs collecting WEEE in excess of their targets.

Meanwhile, under option four BIS explains that it would need to establish a system for pairing PCSs to collection sites. The WEEE Schemes Forum, which is chaired by Recolight chief executive Nigel Harvey, intends to bid to take on either of the roles, should they become available.

BIS has yet to provide further details for either of the roles and how a selection process for each would take place, but the Forum explained that it has begun the preparing for a bid as the timeframe for doing so after BIS has selected its preferred option is likely to be too slim.

In its statement, the Forum said: BIS is currently consulting on changes to the WEEE regulations, and has proposed four options for the UK household WEEE collection system. The WSF has today announced it intends to adopt a constitution and to establish a legal entity. This should allow the WSF, subject to the agreement of BIS, to act as the operator of a PCS takeback scheme, as proposed in BIS option three, or of the WEEE PCS-DCF matching system, as proposed in BIS option four.

“In taking this decision, the WSF is not indicating a preference for any of the four options. However, it is positioning the WSF to be able to offer to operate the proposed systems, should the revised WEEE regulations make this necessary. This would need detailed discussions with BIS, and other relevant stakeholders, to determine the best operational procedures.

Commenting on the move, Mr Harvey said: We are preparing ourselves for the possibility that BIS might select option three or four. Although we cant say at what the exact roles will be at the moment, as it will depend on the shape of the final regulations that come from the consultation, we want to be in a position to perform those functions.

We are inviting all of the schemes who are not members of the WSF to join until the end of 2013 without cost so that they can be involved in discussions with existing members.

Changes are being made to the UKs WEEE regime to bring the UK in line with the Recast European Union Directive on WEEE, and following concerns from producers of electronic equipment that the cost of compliance with the legislation does not accurately reflect the cost of recycling.