In order to give you the best experience, our website uses cookies. By continuing, you accept that you are happy for us to use these cookies. To get more information on the cookies used on our website please read our Cookie Policy.

Manage Cookies

 
In order to give you the best experience, our website uses cookies. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.

You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different categories to find out more and change your default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.


Mandatory cookies

(Req)
These cookies are essential so that you can move around the website and use its features which cannot be switched off in our systems. They are set in response to actions made such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

These cookies are required

Performance cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.


Statement following Environment Agency court case judgement

25 June 2019

STATEMENT FOLLOWING ENVIRONMENT AGENCY COURT CASE JUDGEMENT

 

We strongly contested this case and are very disappointed with this outcome. We are considering our position and grounds for appeal.  At the time of the case we supplied a vital raw material to China to be recycled in an environmentally sound manner as an alternative to forestry. The materials we supplied commanded market-leading prices and met both international industry and customer standards. Throughout this case the Environment Agency (EA) has accused Biffa of failing to meet standards that it has repeatedly failed to specify through guidance. The EA has been continually asked to specify a required level of purity by both the industry, and in one instance the Court of Appeal, and the failure to do so is a breach of its responsibilities to the market.

 

Due to the lack of reprocessing capacity, the UK and Europe is reliant on the export market for recycled paper and cardboard. The charges in the case relate to contamination levels in seven containers of mixed paper that were due for export to China over four years ago. At that time China was a core market for UK exported materials for recycled paper and cardboard, and Biffa was a key supplier to some of the largest, best-invested cardboard mills in China. These mills were all accredited by the EA as being of an equal or higher environmental standard as mills within the UK and Europe.

These materials were regularly inspected by customs in China and by a Chinese Inspectorate regime based in the UK prior to shipping. In addition, all buyers conducted pre-checks before shipping to confirm that the materials were 98.5% pure paper, which was the accepted industry standard. With the UK recycling more, there is a level of contamination in recyclable material, which we make strenuous efforts to minimise at our industry leading sorting facilities and reprocessing capabilities. The court heard no evidence to suggest we were outside of the industry tolerance for contamination and no customer ever rejected any material on quality grounds.

This case highlights the need for the EA to issue clear guidance to the industry as to what are the acceptable levels of purity for UK exported mixed paper. In this instance the jury was asked to make a judgement as to whether they considered the level of contamination was minimal, without any quantitative guidance.  In the absence of any EA guidelines our products always met the standards set by our customers and provided a route to recycling in an environmentally sound manner.

ENDS

 

Enquiries

Houston PR

T: 0203 701 7660

E: biffa@houstonpr.co.uk