The Environment Agency has warned the UK’s batteries producer compliance schemes against complacency over their ability to reach next year’s waste portable battery collection target, despite their “encouraging” performance so far in 2010.
As it revealed that all six schemes had their operational plans for the three years from 2011 to 2013 approved at the end of last month, the regulator stressed that next years interim collection target of 18% is almost double this year’s figure of 10%. Bob Mead, the Agency’s project manager for batteries commented that while the 2010 and 2011 targets were not statutory, if schemes were to miss their goals in those years the Agency would give “serious thought” to their approval. He stressed that “none of us can allow schemes to fail in 2012.”
While figures for the first two quarters of 2010, published last month, showed a waste portable battery collection rate of 12.58%, European law requires the UK to reach a 25% collection goal in just two year’s time. In light of these increasing targets, Mr Mead said, “I am as confident as I can be all schemes will meet this year’s target, but with the caveat that next year’s target is twice as big so no-one should be complacent.”
The six approved schemes, which include BatteryBack, Budget Pack, CCR REBAT, ERP, REPIC eBATT and Valpak, had been required to submit a range of information in their operational plans by the end of August. This includes information such as their expected membership, how they plan to meet those member’s collection obligations and financial details on how the scheme was run.
Mr Mead continued that for 2010 so far, “There is no reason to think any scheme will miss its goals for this year, and while the targets for 2010 and 2011 aren't legally binding they are hard in the sense that we expect them to be met. The operation plan should show they have a reasonable approach to meeting the targets, and if they are missed we will ask the scheme in question to explain what went wrong and what they are doing to correct it. If a scheme was to miss by a long way we’d have to give serious thought over whether we can allow the scheme to continue to be approved.”
For more information, see:
