Peter Hunt, managing director of leading WEEE recycler and compliance scheme operator, Wastecare, discusses the new WEEE regulations and asks if an opportunity has been missed
CIWM Journal Online Exclusive
I have always been an advocate of evolution not revolution when it comes to developing the new WEEE regulations. No one would argue that the old system was in need of reform to reduce the financial burden being placed on the UK WEEE producers. Fundamentally, however, the old system was working and WEEE was getting re-used and recycled.
Having had some time to reflect on The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ (BIS” response to the consultation, I am concerned that we may have raised more questions than we have answered, and created issues and uncertainty with parts of the system, which historically had operated perfectly well.
Taking the positives first. It is good to see that BIS has implemented the widely anticipated ban on the trading of evidence. The mechanism to trade excess evidence between schemes was the primary cause of inflated compliance costs for UK WEEE producers. Scheme operators are now able to contract with each other in advance. This will now become a priority for scheme operators; to avoid BIS imposed compliance fees for any future shortfall in evidence.
“Whilst it will help avoid market distortion the decision not to approve the compliance fee and methodology until QTR 4 of the compliance year in which you are operating is likely to cause further uncertainly”
Another positive move is the introduction of a de minimis level, which removes the disproportionate burden placed on small producers. This is not without its risks, however, and we must recognise that by setting the qualifying limit to five tonnes we will see a significant increase in the amount of producers and material falling outside of the system and schemes. This will directly impact the remaining producers and make the policing of producer compliance harder in the future. Personally, I believe that one tonne would have been a more appropriate level.
One area, which seemed to have a pretty broad consensus of approval during the consultation, was the introduction of substantiated estimates. There remains a significant volume of WEEE treated outside of the scheme, which is currently not counting towards targets or benefiting producers. BIS was clearly concerned about the prospect of double counting but with the right administrative systems in place the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
“The new Regs completely avoid the issue of B2B WEEE. This would have been an opportune time to clarify at what point B2C scrap from DCF’s becomes regarded as B2B for the purpose of generating evidence. In the meantime this continues to be an area of uncertainty”
The new Regs completely avoid the issue of B2B WEEE. This would have been an opportune time to clarify at what point B2C scrap from DCF’s becomes regarded as B2B for the purpose of generating evidence. In the meantime this continues to be an area of uncertainty.
Another concept, which appeared to have support but has seemingly been kicked into touch, is Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR). Under this system manufacturers are responsible for the specific goods, which they place on to the market and not a proportion of all goods placed on the market (irrespective of their type or brand). A system which fails to embrace IPR disincentivises producers from investing in the design of products that are built to last or that have re-use in mind as they will not directly realise the benefit.
Whilst it will help avoid market distortion the decision not to approve the compliance fee and methodology until QTR 4 of the compliance year in which you are operating is likely to cause further uncertainly and is unhelpful for schemes needing to make a call on whether to contract for more tonnage or pay the fee.
Local authorities will need to confirm by January of the compliance year whether they will be looking to self-treat. This is one month in to the compliance year and will potentially cause issues with regards to contracts. It makes more sense for the deadline to be the month prior to the compliance period.
Until we know the compliance fee level it is hard to understand the potential savings of the new system but we do now have a period in which we can feedback to BIS on their proposals. It is important that the sector takes to opportunity to address the potential pitfalls and opportunities of the new system to ensure we have a more robust system capable of delivering the UK’s obligation and value for the UK WEEE producers.
This article is a CIWM Journal Online exclusive and is similar to what you will find every month in the CIWM Journal. To receive this and have access to the archive, you must be a member. Click here to apply for membership now.
