Defra has confirmed that the government has not transposed the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) in UK law by the European Commission’s (EC) deadline of 12 December 2010.

Defra states that following the second stage of consultation, which closed in September 2010, ‘responses are now being considered’, indicating this was a factor in the delay. A spokesperson added that the government “expect to lay the regulations before Parliament in January” and that “EU officials have been kept informed of progress”.

A summary of responses was published on the department’s website on 30 November. It documents the support of industry stakeholders in the waste management sector for much of the proposed legislation. However, it is also clear that many stakeholders are concerned about Defra’s interpretation of some parts of the EC directive, in particular the basis for commingled collection. The draft transposition defines this as the ‘collection of waste streams intended for recycling together with each other but separately from other waste’ and ‘separate collection’ as ‘collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type or nature so as to facilitate specific treatment’.

Included in the summary of responses, is a criticism that Defra has ‘“fudged” the wording of the rWFD and that there was no explicit approval in the Directive for co-mingled collections’.

In an attempt to clarify the issue of separate collection, the Campaign for Real Recycling wrote to the EC. In response, Klaus Koegler, Head of the Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit in the EC Environment Directorate, replied: ‘As regards the co-mingled collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass it seems questionable so far whether a subsequent separation of these fractions could provide a quality of recyclables recovered from waste similar to that of separately collected waste fractions.’
Koegler added that ‘it appears doubtful whether the separation of paper and glass after a comingled [sic] collection with other waste fractions will be able to ensure similar quality as separate collection to meet the high purity standards of the paper and glass industry.’

Andy Moore, Coordinator for the Campaign for Real Recycling, believes that Defra’s transposition of rWFD may be open to challenge. He said: “Based on responses from the European Commission, we made a Freedom of Information request for correspondence between Defra and EC about the UK government’s interpretation of rWFD. They have now refused to provide this claiming that it is not in the public interest, but I do not understand how, given the environmental and economic considerations, this is not a matter for public consideration.”

He added: “We believe the UK transposition will not be consistent with the rWFD. It requires that defined materials, each with a unique code in the list of wastes, are kept separate where it is technically, environmentally and economically practicable. This does not square with the loss in material quality resulting from commingled collection of certain recyclables.”

In response, a spokesperson for Defra commented: “We have based our interpretation of the directive on robust legal advice, and have kept the Commission informed of how we intend to implement it, especially regarding the role that different collection systems may play.”