Electrical Goods Disposal Charges
Tuesday the 10th of January 2006
The new electrical goods disposal charges
For those of you who are not familiar with the finer details of this
EU directive, we have reproduced some relevant extracts from the
official press release (issued on 13 June 2000) as well as from a
statement from Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, at that time.
Fudging has created the current mess.
If you read the entire document (available on the EU website) it is
quite clear that the EU were giving manufactures five years to prepare
for the introduction of this directive, and that they would be
responsible for paying the costs. So where did these add on costs come
from? When did the waters get muddied?
The EU Waste Management principle is very clear - the polluter pays. We believe the manufacturers should be footing this bill.
From Official Press Release - June 13th, 2000.
"Producers will be responsible for taking back and recycling
electrical and electronic equipment. This will provide incentives to
design electrical and electronic equipment in an environmentally more
efficient way, which takes waste management aspects fully into account.
Consumers will be able to return their equipment free of charge"
The implication here is quite clear - being forced to carry the cost
of taking back goods for recycling would of course be an incentive for
any producer! The directive was quite clear in its intent- make
producers responsible for recycling returned equipment, and they will
be forced into designing more environmentally efficient goods!
From the Commissioners Statement
"The waste stream of electrical and electronic equipment has been
identified as one of the fastest growing waste streams in the European
Union constituting 4% of the municipal waste today, increasing by
16-28% every five years - three times as fast as the growth of average
municipal waste. Furthermore, it is one of the largest known sources of
heavy metals and organic pollutants in the municipal waste. With a view
to the resource intensive production of electrical and electronic
equipment, the requirement to recycle these wastes will lead to
significant resource savings. Thus, the new proposal fulfils a key
objective of the fifth environmental action programme - the reduction
in wasteful consumption of natural resources and the prevention of
pollution.
*In line with the polluter pays principle, producers need to
organise and finance the treatment, recovery and disposal of waste. The
entry into force of the financing obligation will be delayed by five
years to minimise the impact on producers of the financing requirement
regarding waste from products put on the market before entry into force
of the legislation ("historical waste"). "
There's no ambiguity here as far as we are concerned - "producers
need to organise and finance…". It does not say - "organise the
finance…." A subtle but significant difference.
The new electrical goods disposal charges
For those of you who are not familiar with the finer details of this EU directive, we have reproduced some relevant extracts from the official press release (issued on 13 June 2000) as well as from a statement from Environment Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, at that time.
Fudging has created the current mess.
If you read the entire document (available on the EU website) it is quite clear that the EU were giving manufactures five years to prepare for the introduction of this directive, and that they would be responsible for paying the costs. So where did these add on costs come from? When did the waters get muddied?
The EU Waste Management principle is very clear - the polluter pays. We believe the manufacturers should be footing this bill.
From Official Press Release - June 13th, 2000.
"Producers will be responsible for taking back and recycling electrical and electronic equipment. This will provide incentives to design electrical and electronic equipment in an environmentally more efficient way, which takes waste management aspects fully into account. Consumers will be able to return their equipment free of charge"
The implication here is quite clear - being forced to carry the cost of taking back goods for recycling would of course be an incentive for any producer! The directive was quite clear in its intent- make producers responsible for recycling returned equipment, and they will be forced into designing more environmentally efficient goods!
From the Commissioners Statement
"The waste stream of electrical and electronic equipment has been identified as one of the fastest growing waste streams in the European Union constituting 4% of the municipal waste today, increasing by 16-28% every five years - three times as fast as the growth of average municipal waste. Furthermore, it is one of the largest known sources of heavy metals and organic pollutants in the municipal waste. With a view to the resource intensive production of electrical and electronic equipment, the requirement to recycle these wastes will lead to significant resource savings. Thus, the new proposal fulfils a key objective of the fifth environmental action programme - the reduction in wasteful consumption of natural resources and the prevention of pollution.
*In line with the polluter pays principle, producers need to organise and finance the treatment, recovery and disposal of waste. The entry into force of the financing obligation will be delayed by five years to minimise the impact on producers of the financing requirement regarding waste from products put on the market before entry into force of the legislation ("historical waste"). "
There's no ambiguity here as far as we are concerned - "producers need to organise and finance…". It does not say - "organise the finance…." A subtle but significant difference.