Advertisement Feature
WEEE2 Regulations need evolution not revolution What
The WasteCare Group has recently held WEEE2 conferences in Leeds and London to promote discussion around the rewriting of the current WEEE Regulations.
Delegate polls of key stakeholders taken at the conferences have shown that none of the three new options proposed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) have strong backing with over 50% opting to simply amend the existing scheme.
The aim of the conferences was to encourage all stakeholders to take up the invitation from BIS to consult on the best way forward.
The BIS consultation which 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 was initially put forward as “do nothing”, which was not considered a practical choice by Government. Considered too costly as a whole, change is needed. However, Option 1 with amendments might prove to be the safest way forward.
This point was echoed by
Perry, take back compliance consultant for IT producer Dell, at the
consumers.
Jonathan London
conference, who made the point that ultimately high compliance costs are passed on to
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.”
The fact is that the current system is operating well when it comes to physically dealing with waste.
needs addressing is the lack of real competition amongst schemes and the lack of transparency. .
At the earlier
session in Leeds, David Styles of BIS, explained that the options “are not set in
reduction in registration fees
directly correlate to WEEE collected. 4. Increase PCS registration fee in line with Battery PCS to £92,000 to allow a
for
producers. 5. Reduce registration fees to producers by 50% to bring more material in to the ‘loop’ 6. Allow compliance costs to be made
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 Assessment unless someone gives us a good idea”.
At the London conference I announced that I thought we might have a solution. I believe that there is a way to keep what is good with the existing system and make it work for all parties.
By
improving transparency, removing the guaranteed demand model and allowing the free movement of producers between schemes will increase true competition and result in lower costs for all. It would also result in net benefits to local authorities and recyclers, whilst reducing the overall administrative and financial burden on producers. These amendments would include;
1. Introducing a minimum level at which producers will need to start providing evidence (suggested 1 tonne pa) 2. Remove the distinction of B2B and B2C WEEE, in practical terms it
is
impossible to separate the two. 3. Set recycling targets based on WEEE placed on market as EEE sold does not
public to increase transparency within the system. 7. Remove the guaranteed demand model
The process of evolution rather than
revolution de-risks the future
Regulation and enables us to retain the elements of the current system which are working well whilst addressing the areas that have been failing. The result is a set of Regulations that reduces costs for producers, provides security for local authorities, and increases product available
for recyclers. Throwing the
baby out with the bath water will create considerable disruption and unnecessary cost for all stakeholders whilst leaving us all exposed to potentially unforeseen consequences.
Peter Hunt MD WasteCare Group
Visit
www.WeeeCare.co.uk
to
find out more about the regulations and submit your feedback to the consultation.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68