MEMORANDUM BY THE RECYCLING INDUSTRIES
ALLIANCE (DSW 65)
1. The Recycling Industries Alliance speaks
on behalf of the British Metals Federation, The Independent Glass
Recyclers Association, The Independent Waste Paper Processors
Association, The Textile Recycling Association and the Wood Recycling
Association.
2. These associations together represent
more than 300 companies and a workforce of 20,000. This is the
most powerful grouping of recycling expertise in the country.
The companies represented by the Alliance operate the country's
largest body of specialised equipment, vehicles and collection
facilities dedicated to waste processing and recycling. The nation-wide
network of local and regional service providers gives the Recycling
Industries Alliance an unrivalled understanding of the detail
of how current environmental measures are operating in practise
in all waste streams.
3. Paragraphs 159 to 166 of the Committee's
1998 Report dealt with accreditation to issue PRN's under the
Packaging Waste Regulations. In paragraph 161 it was identified
that those operations which were successful in gaining accreditation
gained a market advantage. The Committee referred to representations
from the Independent Waste Paper Processors Association and Houghton
Waste Paper Ltd. These were essentially that waste paper processors
owned or controlled by waste paper mills were able to guarantee
PRN's as part of negotiations to secure waste collection contracts.
By comparison, independent processors could not be assured of
access to PRN's, particularly when the competitive interests of
the paper in-house processor might be compromised. The Regulations
had effectively created and institutionalised an unfair market
for waste processors which the Office of Fair Trading was not
at liberty to address.
4. At paragraph 165 the Committee called
upon the Minister to take note of the Environment Agency's opinion
that the collection, sorting, grading and baling operations conducted
by waste processors were recovery operations and to amend the
Regulations accordingly—even if this would go beyond the
requirements of the associated directive. At paragraph 176 the
Committee further urged on government the need to ensure that
the money raised through the Packaging Regulations is invested
as intended in improved collection and recovery systems.
5. We regret to advise the Committee that
government has not acted to relieve the commercial disadvantage
visited upon independent waste processors/recyclers by the Packaging
Waste Regulations. Some easement has been made on the earlier
arrangements for the issue of PRN's in respect of processed material
that is exported. However, these arrangements still do not encourage
a buoyant export trade and volumes remain well below potential
in all material streams. The continued difficulties have forced
many independent processors/recyclers out of the packing grade
materials. The "knock-on" effect has led to difficult
trading conditions in all grades in all sectors. There have continued
to be unnecessary hardship and job losses amongst the independent
processing/recycling sector.
6. The difficult trading conditions have
been aggravated by the actions of some compliance schemes operating
national preferred contractor arrangements for the handling of
waste for member companies. These arrangements have often led
to the destruction of the economics of local collection arrangements
previously handled by local independent processors/recyclers.
Whilst the collection figures for individual schemes may show
satisfactory expansion, overall collection in many localities
has fallen and more usable waste is going to landfill than would
otherwise be the case.
7. In October 1998 in a case between Mayer
Parry Recycling Ltd and the Environment Agency a High Court ruling
was obtained confirming that material (metals in the particular
case) having been processed to a defined standard was no longer
a "waste". Full and complete recycling had been accomplished
by the processor/recycler. It followed from this that steel mills
handling such materials were not handling a waste and could not
in logic issue PRNs for such material.
8. The Environment Agency and DETR have
declined to act on the 1998 High Court ruling and have refused
to accredit waste processors/recyclers to issue PRNs. They argue
that in the particular case of packaging the Packaging Directive
uniquely changes the point at which waste ceases to be waste.
The recycling industries have vigorously sought to argue against
this proposition. A Judicial Review was brought against the Environment
Agency in September 2000. Although largely persuaded by arguments
brought forward on behalf of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd the Judge
determined that the issues raised involve interpretation of the
existing EU Framework Definition of Waste. He decided these matters
were best considered by the European Court of Justice. The referral
suggests a further delay of around 18 months before the position
is resolved.
9. Reference to the European Court of Justice
also implies a further 18 months of positive discrimination and
disadvantage for independent waste processors/recyclers. This
affects all material streams—metals, glass, paper, wood
and textiles. (Plastics are the exception where the processor
is recognised as being eligible for accreditation). The real hardships
forced on all independent waste processors/recyclers and lack
of evident interest or action by government led directly to the
formation of the Recycling Industries Alliance.
10. The members of the Alliance believe
that the Government does not value independent waste processors/recyclers
and is wilfully choosing to ignore their legitimate commercial
interests. This is amply demonstrated in the Government's Waste
Strategy for England and Wales. Waste Strategy 2000 (a substantial
document) considers and dismisses reprocessors/recyclers in just
10 lines page 70)—three more lines than that allocated to
wormeries (page 77). Substantial space is given to a discussion
of "Waste Stakeholders"—in particular in the part
relating to "Waste Recovery, Treatment and Disposal Activities"
(pages 61 and 62). However, waste processors/recyclers are not
mentioned or considered within all this discussion. More worrying
still is that in all of Chapter 4 which deals with "Delivering
Change" no role or relevance is identified for waste processors/recyclers.
11. The component parts of the Recycling
Industries Alliance have struggled hard over many years to get
their voices heard within Government. We intend that the Alliance
should now provide a stronger unified voice for our industry.
We hope in time to encompass an even wider spread of sectoral
interests and we expect the tyre recyclers association to soon
join us. However, the industry faces an uphill task in presenting
its common interests to government given that there is no point
within either the DTI or the DETR charged with specific responsibility
for the competitiveness and commercial interests of the recycling
industries.
12. It has been suggested that the recycling
industries are absolutely fundamental to the delivery of Waste
Strategy 2000 and that their role and significance are a running
theme throughout the document. However, this is difficult to credit.
We suggest that if Government is serious in its intent to increase
recovery and recycling it should start by identifying within either
the DTI or the DETR a single point responsible for the industry
sector that carries out these activities as their prime commercial
activity. Waste Strategy 2000 says, "we need a significant
change in the way we manage our waste". The waste recycling
industries suggest that a significant change is also needed in
the priority given to the recycling industries within Whitehall.
We hope the Committee will seek to encourage Government to make
the necessary changes.
13. In answer to the points raised in the
third paragraph of the Committee's Press Notice we have the following
brief comments:
— The system of accreditation trailed
in the Packaging Waste Regulations will lead to only a very slow
increase in recycling of waste. The system supports the traditional
UK outlets for recovered secondary raw materials. Most are already
close to capacity and international conditions will not warrant
substantial investment in new UK capacity. There is no commercial
interest in the established users developing new high value competitive
markets for recovered secondary raw materials. To do so would
risk increasing their own material prices. Unless there is change
in the current accreditation arrangements the UK will be forced
to accept long term export of "waste" to meet Directive
targets.
— Most of the practical work being
done to identify and develop new high value markets for recovered
materials is currently being financed by independent recyclers
who have a direct commercial interest in new outlets for the material
they produce. However, in the absence of PRN funds to act as seed
corn the introduction of these new products and markets will be
unnecessarily slow. We also risk losing valuable EU and overseas
opportunities to our European competitors.
— The current levels of landfill tax
and the proposed increases are too low and marginal to encourage
a significant change in attitudes. A substantial step change is
needed to force radical rethinking. The high levels of landfill
tax in the rest of Europe give their waste processors/recyclers
a significant advantage over UK competitors in internal and international
markets since in those countries there is a substantial financial
advantage in waste producers diverting waste to processing/recycling.
— In some material streams—particularly
paper—there is a large volume of contaminated material that
cannot currently be recycled cost effectively to produce a hygienically
acceptable product. This material is best disposed of to composting
or incineration with energy recovery.
— The landfill credit scheme has been
constructed in such a way that commercial firms cannot derive
benefit. There is much that could be done to help the recycling
industries upgrade and improve their existing facilities—improving
hardstandings, noise pollution, visual amenity, dust and debris
retention—which would add substantially to the local environment
and improve the public perception of recycling in practice. Unfortunately,
in the absence of incentives improvements in advance of the minimum
imposed by relevant regulations are difficult for commercial concerns
to justify.
— Attempts to "educate" the
public are often frustrated by ill conceived collection schemes
which cannot be sustained when the commercial market turns down.
It is important that local authorities and others work with their
local commercial recyclers so that public education programmes
can be developed in line with sustainable market growth.
— It is important that local authorities
seek to work with rather than in competition to local commercial
processors/recyclers. Lack of understanding of commercial market
conditions undermines the sustainable development that is essential
if increased recovery and recycling is to be maintained.
September 2000
| 
