ELE0051

Written evidence submitted by AATF Forum

Implementing a Circular Economy for Electronic Goods

A submission by the AATF Forum

1. Introduction

The AATF Forum has 20 members (appendix 1) and represents approximately 80% of the UK authorised WEEE treatment capacity. This includes all fridge recycling plant operators, the major metal recyclers and key operators in each of the WEEE product recycling sectors. It was formed in 2017 and although not formally constituted, it acts on behalf of its members in discussions with Defra and the regulators in seeking to ensure that the UK meets the objectives of the EU WEEE Directive with a high quality, sustainable and cost effective treatment infrastructure. This is exemplified through our mission statement:

To create a sustainable WEEE processing industry by better understanding the impact of UK WEEE on the global environment and ensuring it’s members always follow best practice and circular economy ethos in the recycling and the reuse of WEEE.

2. Concerns

AATF Forum members seek to operate to the highest standards of treatment to maximise recovery and minimise the impact of their treatment processes on the environment. This requires significant investment in equipment and resources which in turn, requires confidence in supply and funding.

The EU WEEE Directive purpose is stated as:

‘to contribute to sustainable production and consumption by, as a first priority, the prevention of WEEE and, in addition, by the re-use, recycling and other forms of recovery of such wastes so as to reduce the disposal of waste and to contribute to the efficient use of resources and the retrieval of valuable secondary raw materials. It also seeks to improve the environmental performance of all operators involved in the life cycle of EEE, e.g. producers, distributors and consumers and, in particular, those operators directly involved in the collection and treatment of WEEE.’

The original version of the UK Regulations sought collection and recycling growth by requiring producers to fund all collected household WEEE. However, this was undermined by compliance operators who sought to profit through over collection and the sale of evidence to a captive market.

The revised regulations that were put in place in 2013 sought to correct this through the introduction of a Compliance Fee that enabled compliance schemes operating on behalf of their producer members to avoid high cost collections. This has had the effect of stalling collection growth and tightening payments to AATFs through market competiveness. Whilst a competitive market is welcomed and embraced by AATF Forum members, where supply is reduced to the extent that there is capacity surplus, the economics of the market have led to prices that stifle investment and lower quality. This is exacerbated by inconsistent and limited enforcement.

The AATF Forum’s key concern is therefore that the current system is effectively undermining the sector’s ability to address the WEEE Directive’s medium and long term aims. In particular, to invest in processes that maximise the drive towards the Circular Economy.

There are other concerns that the Forum believes need to be urgently addressed.

• Enforcement plays a critical part in the development of waste management infrastructure. Companies need to understand that they are operating on a level playing field within clearly understood rules that are compatible across the UK and with other markets. They need to know that those that seek to operate outside regulation will be dealt with appropriately and that regulation will be effectively enforced. This is not occurring at present. There are varying rules on the definition of waste in relation to EEE between the nation Agencies with the consequence that significant amounts of used EEE never enter the treatment sector in England in particular. This then leads to confusion over exports with widespread concerns as to the contribution to illegal waste exports that comes from the UK. And there is concern amongst Forum members that a significant proportion of AATFs are not held to account on BATRRT standards. IN 2018, less than half of the AATFs accredited in England were audited by the Environment Agency.
• A more recent concern has come from the application of the revised EU POPs standards. The Forum has welcomed recent analysis carried out on WEEE to determine the level of Persistent Organic Pollutants which has clarified the hazardous classification of certain WEEE types. But there are concerns that interpretation by the Agencies on some aspects will significantly reduce the ability to recycle and reuse.
• A major element of the Circular Economy is extending life of products, either through repair – a non-waste activity – or ‘preparing for reuse’ – a waste activity. Current waste rules are inhibiting these activities with differences between the Agencies interpretation of the point at which it becomes waste and then the hazardous classification when it is waste despite there often being no greater environmental risk than when the item is in use. As an example, a fridge collected from a business premises will generally be classed as waste requiring hazardous consignment processes – documentation and cost – because it is deemed to be hazardous despite the fact that it may be perfectly workable. Aside from the cost element, its classification as hazardous waste tends to lead collectors to seek the disposal route by recycling rather than to consider the potential reuse opportunities.
• The Forum has been seeking a much clearer and consistent position both within the EA and between the national Agencies to encourage reuse without enabling reuse to act as a facilitator for illegal treatment and export.

Overall, then, the Forum fully supports the EAC Chair’s comment that:

“Our attitude to e-waste is unsustainable and the need for radical action clear. We will be investigating the UK’s e-waste industry and looking at how we can create a circular economy for electronic goods.”

We believe there is a need to:

• Radically overhaul the WEEE Regulations to ensure that there is a much greater incentive for proactive collection growth.
• Urgently review enforcement activity to encourage investment in sustainable high quality treatment.
• Urgently review regulatory guidance to maximise resource recovery and reuse through clear, consistent, national interpretations and application.

EAC questions

1. What steps are being taken to move towards a circular economy for electronic goods? How can the UK Government support this transition? There is little evidence of steps being applied to either those placing goods on the market or those dealing with used EEE.

The UK chose to apply producer responsibility on a shared – rather than individual – basis. Consequently, the WEEE Regulations apply no incentive for producers to improve the life, dismantlability or recyclability of products as costs are applied on a weight basis regardless of environmental impact. Until brands see benefit in designing for the environment, there is unlikely to be any substantive change in the way that we deal with WEEE.

There must also be clearer incentives for reuse, both of parts and whole items. The need for WEEE evidence to meet regulatory targets has seen a decline in reuse as the ability to generate evidence from recycling is easier. This suggests that there is a strong need for a much clearer and more environmentally orientated guidance on the definition of waste from the point at which the first user seeks to replace or discard it.

2. What is the environmental and human health risk from e-waste? How significant is it and who is most at risk?

The risks from e-waste mainly come from improper treatment, especially in developing countries where there are few controls to minimise the risk of both the manner of ‘treatment’ eg burning cables and the disposal of residual waste. This is well documented, but in the UK, licensed and authorised facilities are required to operate to standards that should prevent any risk and generally, it is believed that whilst not necessarily operating to high standards, sites do not intentionally create environment damage. However, there is significant environmental impact from illegal WEEE ‘treatment’ in the UK. Of particular concern is the trade in fridge compressors with an estimate that close to 20,000 litres of compressor oil a year is drained into the earth or surface water system by unscrupulous removal of compressors from dumped items to say nothing of CFCs that escape through crushing of fridges by low quality scrap metal operators.

More recently, the major environmental risk from e-waste in the UK has become lithium-ion batteries. Extremely unstable when damaged, these are now the main cause of fires at waste sites, especially those treating WEEE and the lack of battery separation from electrical items plus the proliferation of cheap replacement batteries on ebay and similar sites is worsening the problem. There is a need for improvements to the WEEE DCF Code of Practice to improve battery control as recycling centres including the prohibition of WEEE crushing at this sites to reduce transport costs. 

3. How can secondary markets for electrical goods be improved? What incentives are required to implement these markets?

There need to be definitional, regulatory and enforcement changes that encourage the reuse of electrical equipment over recycling without opening the door to illegal exports or sham reuse. The recent analysis of POPs in certain older EEE items has the potential to further inhibit reuse due to the constraints on putting used-eee containing POPs back into the market. But there are also other factors at play such as brand-protection and liabilities where there need to be clear mandatory standards enforced on testing.

4. Why does recovering materials from electronic waste pose a significant challenge? What support is required to facilitate the adoption of recovery technologies?

Treatment of WEEE and recovery of material requires sophisticated technology and cannot be done ‘on the cheap’. Technically, there is not a problem, but there needs to be a recognition that to invest in these technologies requires certainty of supply and the right economic environment. The other side of the coin in the use of secondary materials, whether components or plastics. The construction of many modern items makes dismantling for component use extremely difficult and with the recent POPs issues on WEEE plastic, it is now becoming increasingly difficult to recycle WEEE plastics into new items, instead requiring high temperature incineration.

UK’s Electronic Waste Sector

5. Are UK Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) collection targets achievable? What challenges do UK producer compliance schemes and WEEE reprocessors face in meeting the collection targets?

Ultimately, the targets must be achievable as the data indicates that the UK is only collecting around 40+% of what is placed on the market each year. Since the WEEE Regulations began in 2008, 13.8m tonnes of household EEE have been placed on the UK market with only 5.4m tonnes over the same period. Nearly 3.4m tonnes of that was small electrical equipment, much of which is replaced on a fairly regular basis as technology develops, but the old equipment is not being recycled and instead, tends to languish in lofts and garages or, as recent analysis has shown is being thrown out in householder’s black bags and wheelie bins. Although this stream of WEEE has been gradually increasing year on year, 2018 and 2019 have seen a decline and it is clear that there in a need for  much more proactive approach to make householders see WEEE recycling as being little different to packaging recycling. This needs well-funded and effective communications as well as regular household collection systems.

6. What causes fraud in the UK’s e-waste system? How can this be addressed?

There are three key reasons for fraud:

Opportunity. The UK’s waste tracking system – and in particular, exports – creates considerable opportunity for determined fraudsters to benefit from high evidence prices and overseas value. There is a need for a root and branch reform of waste data management which equally applies to WEEE as other wastes.

Poor enforcement. Whilst the Agencies have effective accreditation processes, their ‘on the ground’ enforcement is widely considered to not be as effective as it needs to be. For example, in 2018, they audited less than half of the AATFs and the concern is that this is taken advantage of by unscrupulous operators who are good at completing forms. Another example is the conviction in of the WEEE fraudster Terence Dugbo in 2016, a conviction much heralded by the EA as a result of their investigations but that actually started with a tip-off from a PCS after the operator was given accreditation. There is also very little attention paid by the regulators to producer free riders. In 2019, approximately 6,400 producers are registered but it is known that there are several thousand still not listed.

Confusion over regulation. The EA in particular, struggles with consistency amongst its officers and struggles to provide the guidance needed by the sector to minimise the risk of abuse. However, it is recognised that both budgetary and IT constraints impact on this and recent structural changes may lead to greater effectiveness.

7. What action can the UK Government take to prevent to the illegal export of e-waste to the developing world?

The UK’s export system is extremely lax and whilst the EA has developed improved intelligence systems to identify potential offenders, there is a need for much tighter reporting requirements on exporters. For instance, green list waste exports do not have to even be notified to the Environment Agency prior to export and must simply carry a form with the waste. This varies around the UK with pre-notification required in Northern Ireland and post notification in Scotland. Defra are known to be reviewing the current system with a view to a consultation in 2020. There is also a problem with the export of WEEE masquerading as used-EEE, partly through intention and partly through the extremely confused position on the definition of WEEE. This relates to the previous issue of the need for clarity in guidance and good communication.

8. What proposals does the UK Government need to consider as part of its consultation on WEEE?

With the revised Article 8a of the EU Waste Framework Directive applying a clear requirement for producers to meet the net cost of collection, transport and treatment of waste covered by EPR, the Government needs to consider measures that will remove the cost constraints of collecting WEEE from households. This needs to consider:

• Communication campaign costs.
• Local authority collection costs.
• Treatment costs including the full cost of disposal of POPs waste.

There should also be consideration of the current producer compliance mechanisms. It is clear that the proliferation of compliance schemes serves little purpose in developing solutions with many simply providing an administration function. The true cost of compliance behind the charges to producers is extremely opaque and the Forum would argue that there is a need for operational plans for compliance schemes to be reinstated to ensure that schemes cannot just rely on the Compliance Fee to achieve compliance.

The Government must also consider how it can encourage both component and unit reuse and consider whether ‘one size fits all’ weight based targets are the correct way to measure environmental performance for the future.

There must also be a review of retailer responsibilities. Large white goods returned through the Household Waste Recycling Centre infrastructure are invariable too damaged to be reuse by the time they reach AATFs, but collection on delivery items conversely, are widely reusable. We therefore believe that greater accountability should be provided to retailers for zero-cost takeback, either in store or on delivery. Finally, there must be greater accountability for online retailers and fulfilment businesses to contribute to collection and treatment costs. Recent EU requirements for suppliers into Member States – including fulfilment companies such as Amazon – to have an ‘economic operator’ to manage their responsibilities in country from July 2021 should also be applied to the UK.

9. Is UK public awareness of e-waste recycling satisfactory? If not, how can it be improved?

No. Regular surveys indicate a general lack of awareness amongst consumers of the need to recycle WEEE and the facilities available. Very few local authorities have door step collections of WEEE but even those that do see little take up. Household Waste Recycling Centres are the main sources for household WEEE collection, but with many local authorities now closing sites to reduce costs, there is even less likelihood of householders making the effort to drive long distances to get WEEE recycled. There is a need for a properly funded national communication campaign as well as better information from retailers.

Please address all enquiries to:

Phil Conran

Chairman AATF Forum

www.aatfforum.co.uk

Appendix 1 – AATF Forum members

September 2019

www.aatfforum.co.uk                             September 2019