Waste exports need ‘greater enforcement’
The waste industry is calling on government to support ‘greater enforcement efforts’ on waste exports, as responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) call for views on the proposed Transfrontier Shipment of Waste (Amendment) Regulations 2013 start to come in.
According to Defra, the 2013 regulations will amend and update the 2007 regulations and will ‘contribute to the government’s commitment to improve enforcement and control of the waste exports regime, in particular, to help combat illegal waste exports from the UK’.
Industry bodies, including the Resource Association (RA), a trade body for the reprocessing and recycling industry, have largely supported the proposals made in the regulations, but state that ‘greater enforcement efforts are needed on waste exports’.
Illegal exports of waste
Writing in its response, the RA stated that its members in the paper and plastics sectors ‘do not agree that the quality of recovered materials leaving the majority of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the UK (using co-mingled inputs which include paper and plastic waste) has improved significantly’.
Indeed, the RA believes the significant quantities of poor quality recovered paper and plastics is being exported as ‘green list waste’ and the current Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations are ‘failing to prevent or deter this’.
According to the RA, this is having a ‘detrimental effect’ on UK reprocessors on the UK’s international standing as ‘problems are encountered’ in destination countries. Several countries, such as China and Malaysia have already put in place tight measures to restrict the flow of low-quality recyclates into their respective countries, known as a ‘Green Fence’.
As such, the RA has emphasised its support of the UK 2013 Regulations as an ‘important opportunity to strengthen the current enforcement systems’. The body says: ‘We remain concerned that illegal shipments are sent overseas for manual sorting in poor working conditions and to facilities that are not ‘broadly equivalent’ to those in the UK as required by the waste shipment regulations. We support transfer of responsibilities to DECC in this area provided that they receive specialist training to address this issue.
‘More broadly, we consider that greater transparency in the reporting of end destination of recyclate and a drive by local authorities to ensure their contractors provide such information (as we set out in our End Destination of Recycling Charter) would also support the objective of ensuring that recycling is carried out in ‘broadly equivalent’ facilities.
‘Although not in the remit of this consultation, we suggest that Defra look again at this issue and consider how end destination reporting might be strengthened in England.’
The RA adds that it ‘expects government to offer mutual support’ of their efforts to ‘unite the mainstream of [the] industry in dealing with elements of the business that run the risk of causing serious reputational damage to legitimate companies’.
Key Suggestions
The RA confirmed its support to provide ‘legal authority for HMRC to disclose relevant export data to the UK competent authorities (CAs)’ and go about ‘clarifying the role of the CAs for the transit of waste and the marine area’ (currently the role of the Secretary of State), which was proposed in the 2013 Regulations.
Additionally, the RA stated it ‘strongly supports’ the proposal to allow the Border Force (BF) to stop and detain suspect shipments themselves, as the Environmental Agency’s (EA) enforcement resources cannot currently ‘keep pace’ with huge physical growth in illegal exports.
The RA also agrees with the proposal to ‘change the fees payable for the import and export of waste into and from Northern Ireland, and with the level of fee proposed’.
However it suggested there should be a ‘more transparent approach to the provision of information’ when consulting on the level of fees proposed to be levied.
Other key changes the RA supports include:
- changing the CA to the Environment Agency for the transit of waste in the UK;
- allowing the DECC to be involved with inspections and evidence gathering for offshore installations for the purposes of supporting the UK CAs enforcing the WSR and the 2007 Regulations;
- changing the CA for the shipment of waste in the marine area, (provided the DECC receive ‘specialist training’); and
- a future amendment to the Regulations to require the submission of Annex VII forms to NRBW.
The RA also said it sees ‘no significant inaccuracies in the partial impact assessment’ as presented alongside the consultation.
However, it does suggest the government takes ‘a holistic view of costs and benefits,’ stating the ‘robust enforcement‘ of the Waste Shipment Regulation is a vital measure in supporting Defra’s policies regarding recyclate quality and the green economy.
Other measures, consisting of the proposed MRF Regulations and the review of the Producer Responsibility regulations, are said to be ‘excellent conceptually’ but have the ‘unintended consequence of incentivising illegal exports’.
Other Responses
The Environmental Services Association (ESA), a trade body that represents around half of all UK MRFs, has said it did not make a detailed response to the consultation, but has welcomed it.
Jakob Rindegren, Recycling Policy Advisor at the ESA, said: “The ESA supports the Environment Agency’s intelligence-led approach to intercepting and stopping illegal exports, which do so much to undermine the legitimate industry.
“We therefore welcome the proposals in the consultation, on the basis that they will make it easier for the EA to tackle illegal exports.”
