The article goes on to say that many EU member states already reach the 95% target, and gives the example of Germany, where there has been significant investment in energy recovery in recent years.
However, the real situation is a little more complicated. While many EU MS have invested in energy recovery, often as a result of the Landfill Directive, few of the 28 EU member states have so far reported meeting the ELVD 95% target. And those that have often don’t define ‘recycling & recovery’ in the same way we do. For example, Germany (which in 2012 claimed it was achieving 106%) has for years been ‘back-filling’ salt mines with shredder residue & counting this as ‘recovery’ – something many consider little better than landfilling (or the previous use of shredder residue as landfill ‘cover’). Both Holland (where ARN exists) & Finland declared reaching 95% in 2012, whereas France only reached 82% & Spain 86%.
It is also not clear why Government should be expected to use public money to support market-driven producer responsibility legislation. The cost of meeting the 95% target (i.e. treating shredder residue) is accounted for within the value of the material purchased by the shredder, which is subject to open market forces. If shredders were to substantially reduce their buying in prices, perhaps to the point where scrap vehicles once again become valueless, then under the ELV Directive, it would be the vehicle manufacturers that are financially liable. Not the public.
It should be noted that in the UK, BIS has already ‘approved’ 95% target achievement mechanisms by CarTakeBack & RemoveMyCar, with EMR reportedly investing £millions in the development of UK-based shredder residue treatment processes