It’s an issue that every so often provokes shocking headlines and with them disturbing mental images, of toxic junk dumped unceremoniously somewhere in the developing world. Illegal waste shipments are certainly a major problem and it’s unclear how big a problem they are. One estimate, courtesy of the European Commission, suggests that around 25 per cent of all waste shipments sent from the EU to non-OECD countries contravene international regulations – a figure that, if true, is more than a little shocking.

And it has been in the news again recently. The British Plastic Federation has intimated that for domestic plastic recycling targets to be met, the UK’s ‘over-reliance’ on exporting (often poor-quality) plastic waste to the Far East has to be curtailed. In any case, our hand may soon be forced: Malaysia has already banned all plastic waste from the EU, and, in autumn 2012, China announced plans to prohibit the import of unwashed plastic waste and ban imported waste from being transferred to any company other than the one stated on an import licence.

Then earlier this year came the successful conclusion of Operation Mound, when two men from Swindon were sentenced at the Old Bailey for illegally exporting 15,000 tonnes of waste to Brazil between 2008 and 2009. The shipments were supposed to have been ‘mixed plastics’ but were found also to contain nappies, blood packs and syringes.

At the same time as this, the EU has begun to look afresh at the issue. In July, it announced that it was seeking to amend the Waste Shipment Regulations. Environment Commissioner Janez Potoc?nik announced: “It’s time for stricter controls in all member states – that’s the best way of stopping dishonest exporters from taking advantage of the system.”

The current system leaves member states free to set their own standards, but the EU is looking to introduce minimum inspection requirements for all waste exports. In addition, it has proposed a series of amendments including requiring evidence of the legality of a source of any shipment – whether it’s waste or not – and increasing inspections of collection points and waste storage facilities. These proposals are set to go before the European Parliament Council this autumn.

But the UK has not been slow in coming up with its own plans. Last spring, Defra launched its own consultation on amendments to the 2007 Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations. It has proposed strengthening the role of the UK Border Force, giving it the power to detain containers for up to five days if it suspects illegal waste is onboard.

Defra has also suggested that it supports the EU’s move to harmonise standards across the community. “We would like to see amendments that improve the system of inspections across EU member states, by plugging gaps in enforcement and allowing member states to share best practices”, says a Defra spokesperson. “Consistency in the enforcement of the regulations would ensure that those who attempt to export illegally would not succeed by targeting a weaker link.”

Copyright: Environment Agency

At present, shipments of waste from the UK come under two main categories. There is so-called ‘green list’ waste, which is deemed low risk and can be exported without any prior authorisation. Then there is more hazardous ‘notified’ waste, which can only be exported under strict control – prior consent is required from the authorities at its destination. Needless to say, one of the major problems is when notified waste is shipped under the guise of green list rubbish.

The Environment Agency (EA) has come up with a number of initiatives that should go some way to combating this. “If you look back a few years, we were a very reactive organisation”, admits National Waste Enforcement Campaigns Manager Paul Keay. “But we have changed the way that we do enforcement. The whole issue is now a priority area for us.”

With this in mind, the EA has developed a specialist environmental crime team at both national and regional levels. “Our enforcement now is intelligence led”, says Keay. “We are now looking to identify trends or people involved ahead of them actually undertaking the activity, very much in the way that the police do.

“In addition, we’re also going back up the supply chain and talking to people who are in the positions in businesses to influence where waste goes, with the idea of putting them straight on what their responsibilities are, what the best practice is, and giving them some clear guidance on what they should be doing.”

One problem in all this is that different countries deal with different waste streams in a variety of ways – and these are constantly changing. To guide exporters in this, the EA has developed a web tool that enables them to access up-to-date information about the regulations governing the importation of waste to different territories.

Another element in the EA’s strategy is making links with people at ground level, and indeed for Keay everyone in the waste industry has a part to play in this: “If you look at a MRF operator, they should retain evidence of inputs and outputs of material going into their site. They should audit the quality of the inputs and outputs of material at their site and they should be able to provide audit trails to subcontractors.

“People involved in the export of material should ensure that that material is properly stored, sorted and is the right quality, that waste is correctly described on paperwork and the necessary notifications are completed. They should be aware of the destination of the waste and that when it reaches its destination it is recovered properly. And they should report any concerns or information that they have regarding wrongdoing to the appropriate authorities, either here or overseas.”

The EA has scored a number of successes this year. In addition to Operation Mound, there have been successful prosecutions of illegal exports of WEEE to Nigeria, Ghana and Pakistan. But there have been criticisms that, in the case of Operation Mound, the UK authorities were in effect sleeping on the job – it was the Brazilian authorities who actually discovered the waste.

“In the case of the plastic waste that was being sent to Brazil, the paperwork did not lay it out as ‘hazardous’,” says Keay. “Neither was it hazardous – in that sense it was poor recycling that gave rise to the hazards amongst the waste. Going forward, we’re going to work with partners to share intelligence on people involved in illegal shipments. The people involved who were prosecuted in relation to this matter were working with a number of different organisations and some of those organisations may have concerns. And where people have concerns, we will encourage them to share that information with us, so that next time we can hopefully act ahead of the actual waste going abroad.”

Certainly, more cases like Operation Mound could have serious implications – not just for individual firms, but also for British recycling as a whole. “The Brazilian government have complained to the EU about the export of materials to Brazil, so that casts a shadow in our direction”, says Keay. “And if the public gets wind of that, then it could impact on the public’s confidence in recycling within the UK. There are a number of risks if we fail to take action on this.”