Memorandum submitted by Waste Watch (E4)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Waste Watch is the UK's leading environmental
organisation promoting action on the "3Rs"—waste
reduction, reuse and recycling—as a means of achieving more
sustainable resource use. Our expertise lies in public awareness-raising
through communication, education and information-provision relating
to waste and resource issues. We are also increasingly involved
in research projects that aim to help in the development of policies
at the national, regional and/or local level that lead to more
sustainable resource management, and reflecting European Union-level
initiatives. Our response falls under the following headings:
— UK approach to EU Directives.
— Producer Responsibility.
2. UK approach to EU Directives—Waste
Watch has provided evidence to the many recent Parliamentary inquiries
identifying the UK Government's approach of "compliance at
low cost" as one the main driver in its poor performance
in waste policy. Taking the example of the Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive (PPWD), a "compliance at low cost" approach
results in an inappropriate level of funding for the sectors affected
by the resulting legislation, most obviously evident in the exclusion
of the funding of household-derived packaging waste within the
current UK system. Funding for local authorities for recycling
schemes has meant that compliance in relation to the PPWD has
been subsidised by the Government, masking the true costs of implementation
of the Directive.
3. The UK Government's approach of compliance
at low cost also has a second key negative impact. Focus on compliance
has resulted in implementation of the letter, rather than the
spirit, of each Directive. This, in turn, has led to fragmented,
often counter-acting, mechanisms which result in disincentives
to better performance or in missing the targets needing to be
met. The majority of English local authorities are certain to
not meet the statutory recycling targets set by the Government
to help meet the Landfill Directive targets; and the UK was one
of two Member States to miss the PPWD targets last year (despite
being one of only two Member States to have fully implemented
the Directive).
4. Producer Responsibility—Using the
PPWD as an example again, the UK's implementation design is unique
in Europe on a number of levels, not least in having used "shared
responsibility" along the packaging supply chain. Were the
legal responsibility for implementation focused on one sector
of the user chain, it would concentrate minds more closely to
the need to meet the targets, without precluding the sharing of
the delivery of activities in relation to the targets. The concept
of producer responsibility, although still an imperfect science,
should be implemented in such a way that the producer with ultimate
control over decisions relating to design of the product bears
legal responsibility for compliance with the legislation. The
sometimes implicit aims of PR-based mechanisms are to encourage
the more environmentally-friendly design of products, therefore
the closer responsibility lies to design, the more effective the
influence upon design decisions.
5. Recycling/Recovery—As with the
PPWD, the ELV and WEEE Directives incorporate targets on both
recovery and recycling. In the current UK economic and regulatory
framework, recovery has been taken to mean incineration. In particular
respect of the WEEE Directive, organisations such as the Furniture
Reuse Network (FRN) have raised the need for a reuse target to
be incorporated into the UK's legislation implementing the Directive.
As stated earlier, a change of approach by the Government to implement
the spirit and not the letter of the Directive, would be served
by clear and explicit guidance on what is considered recovery
(preferably reuse, refurbishment and repair). Clarification of
the Government's views on these, and their communication via guidance
in advance of the transfer into UK law is a necessity. Notwithstanding
clarification of activities deemed "recovery", the Government
should start to prioritise activities further up the waste hierarchy.
In particular reference to the WEEE Directive, these products
are often ideal for refurbishment and repair for provision of
these items to low income individuals or families.
6. Objectives v Targets—As already
stated earlier in this response, the Government's compliance at
low cost approach and its focus on the letter rather than the
spirit of Directives have resulted in policies which support poor
performance in resource/waste management. The Government should
learn from the resulting practices of the design of the packaging
regulations—that is, the "cherry picking" of materials
from easier to collect industrial sites thereby ignoring the more
publicly obvious household sources. The tonnage-based compliance
approach taken with the packaging regulations has not been realistic
in anticipating the subsequent activities of compliance schemes
and reprocessors in meeting the letter of the Directive as it
has been translated into law, rather than the objective, or the
spirit, of the Directive—that of increasing packaging recycling
and reducing the level of packaging put on the market.
7. Information Provision—As with the
PPWD, there is a requirement for obligated companies to communicate
to the public on the environmental impacts of packaging—the
Consumer Information Obligation (CIO)—both the WEEE and
ELV Directives have similar clauses. To date, the UK Government
has not clarified what amount of money is required per tonne to
meet the CIO, leaving companies unclear as to how to meet it.
Engaging with the public is necessary if they are to become aware
enough of environmental issues to change their behaviour, and
participate in take-back schemes or other such schemes at the
end of a product's life.
INTRODUCTION
8. Waste Watch is the UK's leading environmental
organisation promoting action on the "3Rs"—waste
reduction, reuse and recycling—as a means of achieving more
sustainable resource use. Waste Watch has over 400 members from
a wide cross-section of local authorities, the community and social
economy sector, business, other agencies and individuals. We are
supported nationally by funding from the Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs' Environmental Action Fund, together with
project funding from a number of waste management companies through
the legacy fund of the Landfill Tax Credits Scheme, a range of
corporate supporters and our membership.
9. Waste Watch's expertise lies in public
awareness-raising through communication, education and information-provision
relating to waste and resource issues. We are also increasingly
involved in research projects that aim to help in the development
of policies at the national, regional and/or local level that
lead to more sustainable resource management, and reflecting European
Union-level initiatives. Our response focuses on the broader elements
of implementation of the Directives so that their objectives are
at least met. These will fall under the following headings:
— UK approach to EU Directives.
— Producer Responsibility.
UK APPROACH TO
EU DIRECTIVES
10. The many recent Parliamentary inquiries
in the area of UK waste management policy has provided Waste Watch
with the opportunity to communicate its view that the UK Government's
approach of "compliance at low cost" has resulted in
poor performance in this policy area. Drawing heavily upon the
experience of the implementation of, and subsequent performance
in meeting the targets of, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
(PPWD), it is Waste Watch's view that the Government needs a change
in approach in the implementation of the two Directives related
to this inquiry. A "compliance at low cost" approach
results in an inappropriate level of funding for the sectors affected
by the resulting legislation, most obviously evident in the exclusion
of the funding of household-derived packaging waste within the
current UK system. Only now that higher material-specific targets
are being discussed at EU level are compliance schemes turning
more systematically to local authorities for support of their
recycling schemes. Local authorities have already expressed concern
about further costs needing to be borne by them, and their continuing
frustration in the delay by Government of allocating appropriate
levels of funding to support such recycling schemes. Funding for
local authorities for recycling schemes has meant that compliance
in relation to the PPWD has been subsidised by the Government,
masking the true costs of implementation of the Directive. Waste
Watch therefore recommends the reflection of full collection costs
into the resulting compliance structure for each Directive.
11. The UK Government's approach of compliance
at low cost also has a second key negative impact. Focus on compliance
has resulted in implementation of the letter, rather than the
spirit, of each Directive. This, in turn, has led to fragmented,
often counter-acting, mechanisms which result in disincentives
to better performance or in missing the targets needing to be
met. A major step-change in the UK approach to EU environmental
legislation will be supported by a better understanding of sustainable
development and a more even approach to its three tenets—social,
economic and environmental. The over-riding low-cost approach
has prioritised this tenet over the other two, to their detriment,
while also resulting in the UK not meeting targets. The majority
of English local authorities are certain to not meet the statutory
recycling targets set by the Government to help meet the Landfill
Directive targets; and the UK was one of two Member States to
miss the PPWD targets last year (despite being one of only two
Member States to have fully implemented the Directive). Waste
Watch therefore recommends that the Government implement the Directives
within the wider context of sustainable development rather than
solely against specific targets.
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
(PR)
12. Again, using the example of the UK Government's
implementation of the PPWD, it is our view that the Government
should learn from its experience here to improve design of implementation.
Although the PPWD was not a producer responsibility-based Directive,
most Member States have used PR in the design of their implementation
legislation. The UK's implementation design is unique in Europe
on a number of levels, not least in having used "shared responsibility"
along the packaging supply chain. As the legislation currently
stands, responsibility is shared by manufacturers (6%), converters
(9%), packer/fillers (37%) and retailers (48%). Were the legal
responsibility for implementation focused on one of these, it
would concentrate minds more closely to the need to meet the targets,
without precluding the sharing of the delivery of activities in
relation to the targets. The concept of producer responsibility,
although still an imperfect science, should be implemented in
such a way that the producer with ultimate control over decisions
relating to design of the product bears legal responsibility for
compliance with the legislation. The sometimes implicit aims of
PR-based mechanisms are to encourage the more environmentally-friendly
design of products, therefore the closer responsibility lies to
design, the more effective the influence upon design decisions.
Waste Watch therefore recommends that full legal responsibility
for compliance be given only to the producers of the Directive
products.
RECYCLING/RECOVERY
13. As with the PPWD, the ELV and WEEE Directives
incorporate targets on both recovery and recycling. In the current
UK economic and regulatory framework, recovery has been taken
to mean incineration. The recent ruling by the European Court
of Justice on when incineration is recovery and when it is disposal
is testament to the fact that other Member States are also interpreting
recovery as incineration. In particular respect of the WEEE Directive,
organisations such as the Furniture Reuse Network (FRN) have raised
the need for a reuse target to be incorporated into the UK's legislation
implementing the Directive. As stated in Paragraph 11 of this
response, a change of approach by the Government to implement
the spirit and not the letter of the Directive, would be served
by clear and explicit guidance on what is considered recovery
(preferably reuse, refurbishment and repair). Clarification of
the Government's views on these, and their communication via guidance
in advance of the transfer into UK law is a necessity. As identified
in the Better Regulation Task Force document on the two Directives,
this is one of the major failings in UK implementation of Directives
thus far.
14. Notwithstanding clarification of activities
deemed "recovery", the Government should start to prioritise
activities further up the waste hierarchy. In particular reference
to the WEEE Directive, these products are often ideal for refurbishment
and repair for provision of these items to low income individuals
or families. The FRN has prepared protocols supporting the Directive,
in particular on reuse of whole products and component parts.
The Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling (ACRR) have
also produced a report detailing how other Member States have
implemented WEEE to date, including their legislation. Therefore
the Government can draw upon existing expertise and experience
in developing further details of the implementation mechanism.
OBJECTIVES V
TARGETS
15. As already stated earlier in this response,
the Government's compliance at low cost and approach and its focus
on the letter rather than the spirit of Directives have resulted
in policies which support poor performance in resource/waste management.
The design of implementation of these Directives offers an ideal
opportunity to correct these. The over-riding objectives of WEEE
Directive are:
— To reduce waste arisings from EEE.
— To improve and maximise recycling,
reuse and other forms of recovery of wastes from EEE.
— To minimise the impact on the environment
of their treatment and disposal.
The ELV Directive's objectives are similar:
— To prevent waste from vehicles, and
at the reuse, recycling and recovery of ELVs so as to reduce the
disposal of waste.
16. The Government should learn from the
resulting practices of the design of the packaging regulations—that
is, the "cherry picking" of materials from easier to
collect industrial sites thereby ignoring the more publicly obvious
household sources. The tonnage-based compliance approach taken
with the packaging regulations has not been realistic in anticipating
the subsequent activities of compliance schemes and reprocessors
in meeting the letter of the Directive as it has been translated
into law, rather than the objective, or the spirit, of the Directive—that
of increasing packaging recycling and reducing the level of packaging
put on the market.
17. It is worth noting that the UK is already
meeting the WEEE Directive's target of collecting 4 kg per head,
therefore little change in behaviour is needed. This is not to
be encouraged by allowing the continuation of the compliance at
low cost approach. The Government has stated that obligated companies
will need to pay for the collection of products beyond the 4 kg
per head target, which is to be welcomed. However, we recommend
that the Government set clearer objectives for reuse and refurbishment
so that companies better understand the Government's intentions
on supporting the objectives of not only the WEEE Directive, but
also the one pertaining to ELVs.
INFORMATION PROVISION
18. As with the PPWD, there is a requirement
for obligated companies to communicate to the public on the environmental
impacts of packaging—the Consumer Information Obligation
(CIO)—both the WEEE and ELV Directives have similar clauses.
To date, the UK Government has not clarified what amount of money
is required per tonne to meet the CIO, leaving companies unclear
as to how to meet it. Waste Watch's Wasteline, the national helpline
on waste-related issues, has long been an over-stretched resource,
which is an obvious recipient of such funds. Engaging with the
public is necessary if they are to become aware enough of environmental
issues to change their behaviour, and participate in take-back
schemes or other such schemes at the end of a product's life.
We therefore recommend that the Government clarify the Consumer
Information Obligation in the WEEE and ELV regulations so as to
provide national communication.
October 2003
|
