WEEE schemes react to BIS consultation

Initial responses to the governments consultation on changes to the regulations around recycling waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) appear to show that BIS has support for its preferred options for change.

In its consultation document, published on Wednesday (April 17), the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) indicated that its two preferred options to overhaul the current WEEE system included setting compulsory targets for compliance schemes (option three) or central allocation of Designated Collection Facilities (DCFs) for schemes (option four) (see letsrecycle.com story).

Other options include a national producer compliance scheme, instead of competition between current compliance schemes or leaving the system unchanged.

Changes are being brought about to incorporate the terms of the Recast of the WEEE Directive, which was passed in Europe in 2012, and also address claims by producers of electronic equipment that the current arrangement does not represent the actual cost of recycling. The proposals form part of the governments drive to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, under its Red Tape Challenge.

Commenting on the consultation after its launch last week, Dr Philip Morton, chief executive of producer compliance scheme Repic, said that the changes favoured by the government appeared to be the most viable.

He said: Repic welcomes the consultation. Of the four options BIS provided, options three and four describe workable, pragmatic solutions which, if properly implemented, can create a fair and equitable system for all stakeholders, a clear audit trail for WEEE collection and treatment, and an environment to deliver the outcome that BIS and Defra describe in their Red Tape challenge.

Either approach can meet the transposition requirements and importantly, help the UK achieve the new higher targets. We look forward to working constructively with all stakeholders to achieve a smooth and timely transposition.

Competition

And, speaking to letsrecycle.com last week Adrian Hawkes, policy director at producer compliance scheme Valpak, observed that it is crucial for the changes to ensure that councils retain the choice as to which scheme they partner with. According to Mr Hawkes a less competitive system could lead to rising costs for local authorities and have a negative environmental impact.

He said: I agree that options one and two, dont make much sense, so three and four are the ones that are worth looking at in more detail. There is a lot of detail in all of the documents and we havent looked at it all yet, but the emerging view from members and local authorities is that they want to retain choice, and that a market system with competition keeps costs down.

Where we would worry about option four (central allocation of DCF contracts) is that it would most probably lead to inefficiencies in logistics which would lead to a negative environmental impact, because you would lose economies of scale.

Meanwhile, the Joint Trade Associations, the trade body representing a number of industry stakeholders including compliance schemes ERP and B2B compliance announced that it has a clear preference for option four – the central allocation system for compliance schemes and collection facility operators.

However, the group has said it would also be supportive of option three, a system in which schemes are given a compulsory collection target, and must pay a compliance fee if this is not met.

Effective

In a statement, the organisation said: Of the two preferred options, the JTA favour the PCS/DCF Matching Process. It is tried and tested, and already operates in a number of other European countries. We are convinced that it will result in the fairest cost for all WEEE stakeholders. We are also confident that this option can be implemented within the UK in an effective and timely manner.

JTA members are fully committed to increasing WEEE recycling rates in the UK. We are convinced that the changes proposed by the government will make this more achievable.

Some reservations about the two preferred options were expressed by Barry Van Danzig, chief executive of compliance scheme Electrolink who argued that treatment facilities would lose income and local authority costs would rise. And, Mr Van Danzig said he considered that the changes proposed in preferred two options were also likely to force income down to compliance schemes, and that this would favour operators who exported WEEE overseas for recycling.

He said: The main focus for BIS now is the reduction of cost of WEEE to producers. This means that DCF operators and AATF recyclers will see their prices forced down and the scrap revenue taken from them with the inevitable increase in cost to local authorities. Ultimately this is bound to reduce the quality of recycling in the UK as the drive to reduce producer costs forces WEEE to be exported to where it can be done at the cheapest price.

Peter Hunt, chief executive of WasteCare, also commented on the proposals, adding that he welcomed the opportunity to create a cost sufficient recycling solution for WEEE. He also acknowledged that the government had recognised the need to reduce the cost of compliance for producers of electrical items.

The consultation ends on June 21, and the government plans to publish its response within eight weeks.