14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table 12-3: Average Compound Rate <strong>of</strong> Growth <strong>of</strong> Packaging by Material, 2001-2007<br />

Packaging Packaging Material Material Average Average Annual Annual Growt Growth Growt<br />

Rate Rate, Rate , 2001 2001-2007 2001<br />

2007<br />

Paper and Card 1%<br />

Ferrous 2%<br />

Glass 9%<br />

Aluminium -1%<br />

Plastic 2%<br />

Other Metals -32%<br />

Textiles -4%<br />

Wood 14%<br />

Others -3%<br />

Source: EPA National <strong>Waste</strong> Reports, 2001 and 2007<br />

The materials showing positive growth rates are those which arise in largest<br />

quantities, and in absolute terms, the greatest growth has been seen in glass, wood<br />

and plastic (in that order). There is a suggestion that glass packaging – typically used<br />

for premium beverages – might have increased, possibly at the expense <strong>of</strong> growth in<br />

other packaging materials, as disposable incomes have increased.<br />

Repak provides data for a short period <strong>of</strong> time on EPA figures for packaging waste<br />

tonnages, and those for Repak members (see Figure 12-1).<br />

Figure 12-1: Trend in Tonnes <strong>of</strong> Packaging for Repak Members, Total Packaging<br />

Reported by EPA, and Retail Sales Volume Index<br />

It is not clear that the data enable one to conclude much other than that the quantity<br />

<strong>of</strong> packaging waste, as reported by the EPA, has fluctuated considerably over time. In<br />

the first year, there is a reported decline in EPA figures (-15%), but an increase in the<br />

tonnages reported by Repak Members (approx +7%). In the following year, growth<br />

rates are the same, but in 2006, growth appears lower in the Repak tonnages than in<br />

211<br />

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: Annexes

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!