Alison Cook, associate director, regulatory support team at Wardell Armstrong, says the ongoing battle against waste crime must be the education of waste producers so that they know how to recycle or dispose of their waste through lawful routes.
There has been much in the news lately regarding the ongoing issue of illegal waste sites and fly-tipping, but unfortunately there will always be those who will push the boundaries to make financial gains. Clearly there are a number of fronts on which to fight this ongoing blight to the environment and to legitimate operators.
These operations can only be successful where there is a source of waste. Part of the ongoing battle against waste crime must be the education of waste producers so that they know how to recycle or dispose of their waste through lawful routes.
The duty of care as set out in section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act, has been with us for 28 years, requiring that businesses transfer their wastes only to an authorised person.
In 2005 this duty was extended to householders, requiring that “It shall be the duty of the occupier of any domestic property to take all such measures available to him as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that any transfer by him of household waste produced on the property is only to an authorised person or to a person for authorised transport purposes.”
Introduced with no further fuss than a few lines on the Environment Agency’s website, I wonder how many householders are even aware that the duty of care exists and that they could be prosecuted and fined for breaching it.
Introduced with no further fuss than a few lines on the Environment Agency’s website, I wonder how many householders are even aware that the duty of care exists and that they could be prosecuted and fined for breaching it.
Certainly, my recent experience in having some building work done suggests that ignorance is the norm when it comes to the duty of care. Our contractor looked most surprised when we asked to see his waste carrier’s certificate, admitting that he had let it lapse since we were literally the only people who had ever asked him about it. Instead we decided to hire a skip ourselves, from a local firm known to be a registered carrier and to hold an environmental permit.
Sadly, we were not overly surprised to find that a couple of days later two men with a van were brazenly strolling up our drive and helping themselves to any scrap metal they could find in the skip. They were surprised to be challenged and left empty handed but I suspect the majority of householders would have been happy for them to take it, unaware of the potential consequences.
The case remains that illegitimate operators will continue to tout door to door as long as householders or small businesses continue to hand waste over to them.
Huge strides have been made in getting the general public to engage with recycling. Are we missing a trick by failing to get the message across about duty of care, something that could easily be done in routine communications about waste collections?
The general public are on the whole in favour of protecting the environment. Surely it is time to get them on side in the war against illegal waste sites by letting them know, not only that they are required by law to use authorised persons, but by doing so they are helping to stop waste ending up in the wrong hands and causing harm to people and the environment.