Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Local Government Association (LGA)
The Chairman of the Committee kindly indicated
that it would be in order for the LGA to make further comments
in writing, following our evidence to the Committee on Monday
4 March. I would like to expand on just two issues, in the interests
of clarity.
I was asked in the enquiry, to compare the performance
of the UK with other European countries. We are not alone in our
inability to process redundant fridges within our own boundaries,
and I believe some countries are completely failing in their obligations
to ensure ozone depleting substances are recovered. I made these
points at the enquiry. However, one of the common factors amongst
most complying EU states is their implementation of some form
of producer responsibility legislation that effectively places
the financial burden of compliance on the producer. The mechanics
of the individual schemes vary but all ensure the costs of dismantling,
recycling and disposal of fridges, either as a part of a wider
obligation for electronic goods or as hazardous waste, is met
by the producer and ultimately the consumer. The timing of EU
producer responsibility is out of step with the ODS regulation
so that the higher environmental standards are being applied without
any equal EU legislation dictating where the costs should fall.
The result is that in the UK, the financial and organisational
buck has stopped with the only bodies who have any legal obligation
to dispose of fridges: local authorities. Producer Responsibility
in the UK is a little time off but until we have clearly defined
legal accountabilities for the management and financing of the
disposal of fridges, and for that matter abandoned cars, tyres,
batteries etc, local authorities will continue to have to pick
up the problem.
The second point I would like to clarify is
in relation to the proposed mechanisms to reintroduce retailer
take back schemes. The simple fact is that take-back schemes were
withdrawn because producers, retailers and/or their sub-contractors
were unwilling or unable to fund their continuation. Local authorities
have successfully managed the problems this has created and I
see no reason why, given the will and the cash, the private sector
could not have done likewise. Retailer take back schemes are the
right way to deal with fridges. They do not involve any special
journeys and consequent use of fossil fuels and resultant pollution.
The units are handled respectfully by staff used to handling expensive
equipment, not waste, and much less damage results. Consequently,
more units will be suitable for refurbishment, and fewer disposed
of. It is therefore crucial that we find a way to reintroduce
them. Without producer responsibility, there is no obligation
on the private sector or consumer in relation to fridges whatsoever.
Funding for implementation of the ODS regulation therefore needs
to be found from elsewhere but, it is understood that direct funding
to the private sector from Government would not be possible. Any
mechanism therefore needs to be via local government.
The lead authority scheme being promoted by
Dixons effectively allows take back schemes to be reintroduced
because any redundant fridges not suitable for refurbishment would
be delivered to the local authority for free disposal. The need
for a lead authority is presumably to reduce the administration
and concentrate resources. As I mentioned in my evidence, I do
not see the attraction of this to any individual authority and
the practicality is that lead authorities will predominantly be
Waste Disposal Authorities or amalgamations of Unitary Authorities.
The alternative proposal being discussed is to utilise the recycling
credits scheme to obligate Waste Disposal Authorities to make
a payment to anyone demonstrating that a fridge collected within
its area has been recycled. Government could set the value of
this payment at such a level as to make the economies of take
back schemes more realistic. Both schemes would require significant
improvements in record keeping and audit trails, but not beyond
the normal requirements for anyone handling waste. I believe take
back schemes have thus far been operating without regard to the
Duty of Care in this respect and systems should be put in place
to ensure there is reliable information on where a unit is collected
from and where it goes to. The credits scheme could easily be
withdrawn when Producer Responsibility starts to apply, and the
value of credits varied to reflect changes in market conditions.
Both options are being discussed in the Government round table
meetings in which the LGA are actively involved.
The principal benefit of the recycling credit
scheme over a lead autority approach is that it does not promote
an ideal that local authorities are the responsible organisations
for implementing the ODS regulation and, more importantly, doesn't
set a precedent for implementation of the WEEE directive. This
is my strongest concern in relation to reintroduction of take
back schemes. It is vital that we do not reinforce misplaced assumptions
within industry and the retail sector that local authorities will
meet their obligations for them. We are very willing to play our
part and help, by utilising our infrastructure on a partnership
basis, but Producer Responsibility should mean just that, not
local authority liability.
Local Government Association Waste and Environmental
Management Executive.
14 March 2002
|
