3-Aug-2006
- Wholesale photographic equipment distributor
Swains International of Hunstanton, Norfolk failed
its environmental duty to recycle and was today
(Thurs) fined at total of £9,600 and ordered
to pay £1,169 costs.
The company, which distributes
digital cameras, 35 mm cameras, bags and accessories,
has a responsibility under the law to recycle
a percentage of its packaging waste each year
if its turnover is more than £2m a year
and it handles more than 50 tonnes of packaging
per year.
King’s Lynn Magistrates Court
was told that Swains’ annual turnover for the
two relevant years was £14.7m and £17.9m
and the company handled 72 tonnes and 75 tonnes
of packaging, respectively.
The matter came to light during
routine research by Environment Agency staff to
check companies likely to need to comply under
the law. It is the Agency’s responsibility to
enforce the Producer Responsibility Obligations
(Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and 2005.
Under the regulations, obligated
companies are required to: 1) register with the
Environment Agency or a compliance scheme by 7
April each year 2) provide evidence of recovery
and recycling of specific tonnages of packaging
waste and 3) provide the Environment Agency with
a certificate stating that they have met their
obligations.
Failing to do this leads to
three charges for each year. In this matter there
are three offences for each of the years 2004
and 2005.
Through the Environment Agency
or a compliance scheme companies buy sufficient
packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) from accredited
packaging waste re-processors to demonstrate they
have paid for enough recovery to meet the regulations.
Magistrates were told that the
company had not only failed its environmental
duty but also saved £2,346 during that time
by not registering to recover and recycle. The
regulations had been designed to reduce the amount
of packaging used and increase the amount of packaging
recovered and recycled.
The failure of companies to
comply with this legislation undermines the UK’s
ability to meet targets set out in the European
regulations. Companies can reduce their obligations
by cutting down on packaging use.
HR director Claire Swain Mason
said at interview with the Environment Agency
that the company had not registered or joined
a compliance scheme because it was unaware of
its obligations. Swains International has joined
a compliance scheme for 2006.
Speaking after the case, Environment
Officer Rachel Jones said: ‘The aim of these regulations
is to make businesses take responsibility for
the packaging used in their operations and reduce
the amount of packaging waste going to landfill.
We do not hesitate taking action against those
who breach the legislation.’
Swains International pleaded
guilty to six offences and was fined £1,600
on each:
1. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 failed to register by 7 April 2004 as required
by Regulations 3(5)(a) and 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of the
Environment Act 1995.
2. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 failed to take reasonable steps to recover
and recycle packaging waste during the year ending
31 December 2004 as required by Regulation 3(5)(b)(i)
of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(b)
and (5) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations
(Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section
95 of the Environment Act 1995.
3. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 failed to furnish a certificate of compliance
in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
by 31 January 2005 as required by Regulations
3(5)(b)(ii) and 23 of those Regulations. Contrary
to Regulation 34(1)(c) and (5) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995.
4. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 failed to register by 7 April 2005 as required
by Regulations 3(5)(a) and 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of the
Environment Act 1995.
5. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 4(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
2005 failed to recover and recycle packaging waste
during the year ending 31 December 2005 as required
by Regulation 4(4)(b)(i) of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 40(1)(b) and (9) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 2005 and Section 95 of the
Environment Act 1995.
6. That you the defendant as
a producer under Regulation 4(2) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
2005 failed to furnish a certificate of compliance
in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
by 31 January 2006 as required by Regulations
4(4)(c) and 21 of those Regulations. Contrary
to Regulation 40(1)(c) and (9) of the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
2005 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995.
Rita Penman
