Experts point out failings in WEEE scheme

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.