Third supplementary memorandum by the
Environment Agency (Waste 30c)
SUMMARY
The Environment Agency welcomes this opportunity
to provide evidence to the Committee's re-opened inquiry into
the Government's Waste Strategy, with particular reference to
the export of wastes.
Exports for environmentally sound recycling
are integral to a sustainable waste management strategy where
the goal is to reduce waste disposal. The amounts and types of
recyclables are increasing and the UK is increasingly reliant
on export markets to meet Government's recycling ambitions.
There are two regimes for waste exports: one
for notifiable wastes, and the other for green list wastes. Notified
waste shipments are largely legitimate and well regulated but
they are a minor fraction of all waste exported.
Green list wastes, or non-notified commodity
wastes, are intended to be essentially self-policing. However,
there is evidence that the system is being abused.
Using additional Defra funding we have significantly
increased our understanding of this growing issue and are successfully
employing a range of tactics to tackle illegal movements.
There is a growing legitimate waste export market
for high quality waste materials and we do not wish to impede
the free flow of quality materials. Ultimately we would hope that
the markets will drive up the quality of material that is being
internationally traded, as happened as a consequence of the recent
economic downturn.
In the meantime the overall approach to the
way in which waste is collected and processed needs to ensure
quality materials are produced. We envisage needing to continue
to take action against those that flout the rules.
1. Introduction
1.1 There is a large and rapidly growing international
market for the export of waste for recovery and reprocessing.
The UK export market doubled from around 7 million tonnes in 2002
to 14 million tonnes last year. Similar rates of growth are being
seen in other parts of Europe.
1.2 Recyclable wastes are international commodities
subject to normal market supply and demand drivers. Policy measures
which divert waste from landfill have increased supply. For example,
the amount of paper collected from households has doubled to 1.6
million tonnes in the last eight years and the amount of co-mingled
recyclable household waste has increased from 200,000 tonnes to
over 1.6 million tonnes today. The UK exported only a few thousand
tonnes of waste paper to China at the turn of the century; this
increased to 2.5 million tonnes last year.
1.3 All companies exporting waste from the UK
must comply with the European Waste Shipments Regulation (WSR).
1.4 Under the WSR the export of any waste for
disposal, or of hazardous waste for recovery to developing countries,
is prohibited, apart from some very restricted exceptions. Where
the rules do permit waste to be exported, the WSR sets out two
distinct systems of control: "notification" and "green
list". The system that applies to any particular export for
recovery depends on the nature of the waste being exported and
its intended destination.
1.5 Under the notification system, prior written
permission must be obtained from the regulatory authorities in
the countries concerned before the waste is moved. About 180,000
tonnes of waste are moved under notifiable controls per year.
This is mainly small quantities of hazardous industrial waste
moving for recovery within Europe.
1.6 The green list control system is much less
onerous than the notification system—no prior permissions
or applications need to be made to the regulatory authorities
before the waste is moved. There is no definitive data on the
amount of waste exported under this system. Analysis of UK trade
data suggests around 14 million tonnes of waste were exported
outside the EU under this control system in 2008 comprising of
commodity materials, such as scrap metal or waste paper, being
sent for recovery to countries that want them.
2. Roles and responsibilities
2.1 Anyone involved in importing or exporting
waste, including persons who transport it, must take all necessary
steps to ensure the waste is managed in an environmentally sound
manner. They must understand what wastes they are handling and
the controls applicable in all countries of transit and destination.
2.2 We are the competent authority of dispatch
and destination for England and Wales and worked closely with
Government on the Transfrontier Shipment of Wastes (TFS) Regulations
2007 to ensure we were given the necessary powers to carry out
our functions. We also produced simple guidance to help all parties
understand their obligations. Charges are payable for the movement
of notifiable waste, to cover our costs in determining applications
and undertaking compliance activities. The movement of non-notifiable
(green list) wastes does not require pre-notification and hence
no charges are payable.
2.3 The WSR requires Member States to put in
place enforcement mechanisms, including spot checks on waste shipments.
We undertake such checks at ports and work closely with our European
counterparts (particularly through the IMPEL network of European
regulators) to share intelligence on movements. We have worked
particularly closely with Dutch customs who have developed systems
to interrogate the data that customs authorities receive from
all exporters. This has allowed them to target inspection efforts
on shipments that are likely to comprise illegal waste exports.
Increasingly we also target our activities further upstream in
order to prevent (and not just detect) potential illegal shipments.
3. Notified waste shipments
3.1 In our experience there is a well established
and mature community of businesses involved in moving waste under
these controls. Before we give consent to the movement of notifiable
waste, we check that appropriate contracts and financial guarantees
are in place and that the country of receipt has given its consent.
These operations are largely compliant. Such movements almost
entirely comprise waste from industrial processes moving from
the UK to other EU countries for recovery, or vice versa.
3.2 We receive approximately 400 applications
per year to ship waste from around 200 different companies. In
2008 there were 6,100 notifiable shipments of waste exported from
England and Wales, amounting to 187,000 tonnes. A further 4,066
notifiable shipments, totalling 123,000 tonnes, were imported.
3.3 We are required to ensure corrective actions
are taken when notified waste movements cannot be completed as
envisaged in the application or where waste has been moved illegally.
This may involve repatriation to the country of dispatch. We have
repatriated 40 loads since 2002 because they were prohibited or
had no prior permission.
4. Green list waste shipments
4.1 The vast majority of waste movements involve
green list wastes. There has been tremendous growth in such materials
in recent years, driven by the shift away from landfill and changes
in global demand. Different types of waste, such as plastics and
paper are now being exported and more participants have become
involved.
4.2 The green list regime is intended to be
self-policing. Companies must determine whether their waste is
accepted by transit and destination countries by reference to
an internationally agreed list. They must set up contracts to
ensure that the waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner
while it is being moved and recovered. Documentation needs to
accompany each waste movement but there is no requirement to seek
prior consent, nor to notify the competent authority.
4.3 Destination countries, China being a notable
example, are increasingly strengthening their own controls on
waste import. Given the continuing scale of exports to such countries
that proceed without incident, it is our view that the majority
of exports made under the green list system are entirely legitimate
and play a crucial role in bringing about the recycling of waste
materials.
5. Tackling illegal waste exports
5.1 Illegal exports can only be tackled if they
are detected. In the case of waste exports made under the notification
system we are told where the exports take place from and generally
regulate the site of origin under other regimes. We concentrate
our checks on the site of export. In our experience the operators
involved in making exports under this system are largely compliant.
5.2 Detecting illegal waste exports made under
the green list control system is more challenging. The scale of
exports is very much larger. Over 50 times as much waste is exported
each year under this system than under the notification system.
We do not have accurate information on where the exports take
place from and have a less well-defined regulatory role, although
we have powers to take actions against offenders.
5.3 The main cause for concern within the green
list system is the export of mixed household waste under the guise
of clean waste paper or plastic. It is illegal to export recyclables
that require separation before final processing under green list
controls. As we are not informed about such shipments, we have
had to develop our intelligence to best target our interventions
where the green list regime is being subject to abuse.
5.4 There have also been illegitimate shipments
of waste under the guise of non-waste such as used electrical
goods allegedly for reuse which, in reality, are destined for
dismantling. Such shipments to non-OECD countries are prohibited.
We suspect two principal origins of these items:
— Household Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE), collected through local authority Civic Amenity
(CA) sites;
— Business to business WEEE that never
enters the formal waste management system.
It is unlikely that this material would be handled
in an environmentally acceptable manner in the receiving country.
In many instances it would be burned to recover some of its metal
content, causing serious pollution, harming peoples' health and
wasting otherwise recoverable resources.
5.5 In April 2008, in light of these challenges,
we secured an additional £4 million of funding from Government,
spread over three years, to allow us to put in place a more comprehensive
programme of work around securing compliant waste exports.
5.6 As a result, we have been able to increase
the number of port inspection days in England and Wales to 132
in the first six months of this year. However, port inspections
only tackle the problem of illegal exports as they leave the country.
We are now focussing on stopping problems before they reach the
ports.
5.7 In the case of mis-described recyclables
we are also inspecting material recovery facilities (MRFs) to
ensure that waste is being properly sorted. In the first six months
of 2009 we carried out 166 unannounced inspections of waste exporters
and transport checks rose to 616. We also placed stop notices
on 53 shipments and made eleven arrests. Since 2004 we have taken
18 successful prosecutions for illegal waste shipments. Fines
were imposed totalling £224,650 and we recovered over £190,000
in costs from defendants.
5.8 The additional funding has also allowed
us to provide advice and guidance. We have worked with the waste
industry, through the Environmental Services Association, to engage
with the major MRF operators and to support the development of
ESA's voluntary Recycling Registration Service. We are also working
with WRAP and local authorities to improve the quality of material
and to stress the importance of knowing where waste is going.
6. Longer term solutions
6.1 There is clearly a growing legitimate export
market for quality waste materials. We do not wish to impede unnecessarily
the free flow of quality materials. The green list system for
exports allows this but it has been subject to a degree of abuse.
Some companies operate on the fringe of legality and others operate
at a high level of criminality. Improved co-operation and interaction
with Customs, the Borders Agency and Ports Authorities would greatly
assist our intelligence-led approach, especially concerning mis-described
shipments. We must also continue working with Government and other
organisations to identify how existing UK waste management practices
may increase the risk of waste being illegally exported.
6.2 With regard to household waste, waste management
services must be designed around ensuring quality outputs that
meet the needs of the market. Local authorities need to be able
to provide reassurances on the destination of recyclables to the
public in order to maintain confidence in the value of recycling.
We have also asked for the obligations under the duty of care
regime to be strengthened to place an obligation on those involved
in the export of waste to ensure they take all reasonable measures
to prevent a breach of the WSR controls. Furthermore, we have
suggested that there be a specific offence to those transferring
waste where that person knows, or ought reasonably to suspect,
that the waste will be illegally exported.
6.3 In relation to WEEE from householders, there
is a need to ensure that it is properly delivered into the legitimate
WEEE treatment system and that it is effectively tracked to prevent
leakage from the system. Any diversion of WEEE for reuse needs
to be managed properly and audited to ensure the segregated equipment
is being refurbished in the UK and not illegally exported. More
work needs to be done to expand and promote a high quality WEEE
refurbishment sector producing equipment genuinely capable of
reuse.
6.4 The Committee may wish also to consider
whether any greater responsibilities could be placed on the original
manufacturers of WEEE products, to assist with their safe and
responsible re-use, recovery or disposal.
6.5 We do not believe that WEEE from businesses
is necessarily getting into the WEEE system. All businesses must
take greater responsibility for the fate of their replaced electrical
equipment, ensuring they are not inadvertently contributing to
illegal exports. We have suggested that changes be made to the
duty of care regime that would require businesses disposing of
WEEE to ensure their WEEE is sent to an authorised treatment facility.
They need to understand better the risks to their reputation from
not managing used electrical equipment responsibly. This extends
to the harm that can be done if sensitive information on storage
media falls into the wrong hands.
6.6 Public sector organisations should
be exemplars of best practice in the procurement, maintenance,
reuse and recycling/disposal of electrical equipment.
7. Concluding remarks
7.1Where waste exports are notified to us, we
have sufficient powers and resources through the fees we charge
to discharge our obligations.
7.2 The regulation of exports ostensibly
made under the green list system and the regulation of exports
of WEEE made under the guise of used electronic and electrical
equipment is much more complex. This is a new area of work for
us and we have had to adopt very different approaches from those
we employ to regulate the relatively few waste exports made under
notification controls. We have used the additional time-limited
funding provided by Defra to focus on this work.
7.3 The funding has increased our ability
to detect illegal waste exports and to take effective action using
the new enforcement powers given to us by the changes made in
the TFS regulations. The funding has also supported the partnership
and influencing work aimed at driving up the quality of recyclables
generated by the waste management industry and tackling illegal
exports of WEEE.
7.4 In our view these strands of work must
continue. The UK as a whole is but one of many relatively small
suppliers of recycled materials to international markets. If overseas
countries are not confident that the UK is exporting quality recyclables
and is properly policing its exports, buyers will look elsewhere
for their materials, with severe consequences for the UK's waste
recycling ambitions and international reputation.
September 2009
| 
