Is the ELV Directive hitting the target? 04/10/2006 Since the second stage of the End of Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive was introduced into the UK last year, the road has not been smooth for those involved with its practical implementation, says Derek Campbell, of recycleyourcar.co.uk, which was launched by Sims Group earlier this year.    “Improvement in the ELV sector’s environmental performance is something that everyone agrees is necessary. It is, however, not a simple process, with many barriers, both major and minor, to be negotiated before success.   “The first major barrier is the UK’s lax vehicle licensing system. It is still possible in the UK to sell a car for cash and accept at face value the name and address that the new owner gives. People can therefore purchase cars providing fictitious names (or giving someone else’s name). Consequently, this weakness in the system has allowed up to two million falsely registered cars to be on the UK’s roads. These vehicles are also not taxed, not insured, probably not MOT’d and possibly not safe. This huge gap in the system further allows people to avoid speed camera fines, congestion charges and parking tickets. Indeed, it could even be said that the proliferation of vehicle-based fines has driven more people not to register cars in their own names.   “Furthermore, the ELV Directive prescribes the issuing of a Certificate of Destruction (CoD) when a vehicle is delivered by its last owner to an Authorised Treatment Facility (ATF) to be scrapped. Only ATFs are allowed to issue CoDs. In the UK, however, last owners of ELVs have no need to obtain a CoD because there is no penalty if they do not; they therefore have no incentive whatsoever to deliver their vehicle to an ATF.     “Whilst most law abiding last owners will indeed ensure that this happens, this lack of a robust system actually encourages the unscrupulous last owner (such as the two million anonymous ones) to take their ELVs to an illegal operator to be scrapped. Why is this? Simple. An ATF has facilities to properly de-pollute ELVs and it has undertaken to assist the UK in achieving the prescribed recycling targets. These activities, however, come at a cost. The professional operator can therefore pay less for an ELV than the illegal operator who has no intention of incurring the cost of either de-polluting the vehicle or attempting to reach the recycling targets.   “Everyone knows that illegal operators are rife in the ELV sector. The Environment Agency does not have the resources nor the legislative framework to effectively control these people. Many of them treat environmental fines, which are generally small, as business expenses. If they are closed down by the EA (which can involve a lengthy process), there is nothing whatsoever to stop them starting up again around the corner.   “The only way that the ELV Regulations can be made to work effectively is through the adoption of a robust licensing system that ensures every car is registered to its legitimate owner and that a financial penalty is applied to the last owner of the vehicle should they fail to obtain a CoD from an ATF.   “Imagine the benefits of such a system. Illegal ELV operators closed down resulting in environmental improvement and giving the professional operator the stability needed for investment; £350m per year more in road tax revenues, as well as fresh income from speeding fines and parking fines for the Treasury; lower insurance premiums for everyone; unsafe cars off our roads; less availability of anonymous vehicles to be used in crime and fewer abandoned vehicles. The ELV Regulations were a golden opportunity to do all of this. An opportunity that, to date, has very sadly been missed.   Another major barrier is centred around the ELV recycling targets. The Directive prescribes that from January 1, 2006, 85 per cent of an ELV should be recycled. Tests have allowed protocols to be established that 75% of an ELV is metal and 1% is fuel. The remaining 9% has to come from de-pollution activities and further recycling of non-metallic components or materials.   75% metal; 1% fuel; say 2% fluids and 3% tyres from de-pollution activities; leaving perhaps another 4% needed to reach the 2006 target. It is agreed by many that this will be achieved most cost effectively by post-shredder separation of non-metallics. The investment needed to achieve this, however, is not insignificant and shredder operators will find it difficult to justify full-scale investment given the uncertainty of continuing illegal or unscrupulous competitors that will not invest.   A third major barrier is potentially that of markets for recyclate. Plastics are an obvious target either from dismantling or from post-shredder recovery. But 4% of all the ELVs in Europe equates to almost half-a-million tonnes of plastic. Who is going to buy it all? Clearly, innovation needs to play a role here in developing new uses for reclaimed materials.   All parties involved in the implementation of the ELV Directive continue to debate practical issues concerning its introduction in the UK. In the meantime, Sims Group has recognised the need for a support structure both for law abiding last owners and independent authorised treatment facilities across the country. Sims Group aims to provide a total package of support through www.recycleyourcar.co.uk.