IT recycling practices were under the spotlight last week as the
WEEE
regulations celebrated their first anniversary. But while the government
insisted that the introduction of the rules had been a success, others claimed
that there were still grey areas over compliance.
According to the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
(Berr), the UK has collected over and above the EU collection target of 4kg per
capita per year in the first year of the directive, and has a collection rate of
about 6kg. Fly-tipping has also shown a downward trend since producer
responsibility was first introduced.
Berr said the priority for the first WEEE compliance period had been to
develop the system infrastructure and achieve EU collection targets, while in
the second compliance period it will work to fine-tune the process and “increase
consumer awareness on how to dispose of electronic waste”.
The WEEE regulation was introduced to minimise the impact of electrical and
electronic goods on the environment by increasing re-use and recycling.
The legislation abides by a “polluter pays” principle, whereby IT
manufacturers take on the environmental disposal responsibilities, either
themselves or by signing up to a compliance scheme offered by one of 40
government-approved waste-handling firms. The manufacturers have a duty to
provide a free collection service for business customers so they can easily
return their equipment at end of life.
But Jon Godfrey at IT disposal services firm
Lifecycle Services, recently
acquired by Sims Group, said most of the third-party take-back schemes were
failing.
“The compliance schemes are meant to give the government a breakdown of the
equipment they recycle so the government can attribute value to the data they
collect. But most have not submitted the data,” he said.
The issue of manufacturers signing up to a compliance scheme that
subsequently fails in its data reporting responsibilities is currently a problem
area, and there is little clarification from Berr about which organisation
should pick up the cost. Godfrey added that it would be unfair to make the
manufacturer pay again.
A Berr spokeswoman insisted the government would not pick up the cost, but
details of the department’s position are still sketchy. The spokeswoman would
only state that non-compliance is considered on “a case by case basis”.
James Taylor of law firm
Simmons
& Simmons pointed to other grey areas in the WEEE legislation, for
example around the requirement on producers to clearly mark compliant products.
He explained that if a manufacturer imports from outside Europe, the importer
needs to take on the responsibility of a producer. “A lot of companies are
unaware they need to take on this extra obligation,” he said.
Another disputed area is that requiring local government to freely dispose of
waste from institutions such as schools.
A Local Government
Association (LGA) spokeswoman said the definition of what constitutes
household waste needs to be urgently clarified by the government, especially
since the landfill tax has caused more schools, hospitals and prisons to turn to
councils to take on the responsibility.
Paul Bettison, chairman of the LGA Environment Board, called for the
regulation to be amended because if the definition is not changed, such
institutions would have less incentive to cut down on their waste production.
Smaller firms also tend to lack formal procedures that prevent staff from
taking PCs home, said Lifecycle Services’ Godfrey, adding that this increases
the cost of regulation to the public as the disposal of household WEEE is paid
for by the government. “It is a huge mistake for a chief information officer to
allow staff to take products home,” he said.
Anja French at Computer Aid
International, a charity that distributes computers to developing countries,
said while she had seen a significant rise in businesses signing up to donate IT
kit since the implementation of WEEE, the government should boost the social
responsibility side of the directive by setting targets that would encourage
companies to re-use equipment that they would normally recycle.
Comments
Have your say on this article