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

Country
Country
241
% % of
of
collection/sorting
collection/sorting
cost cost borne borne by
by
recovery recovery
recovery
organisation
organisation
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes
% % % of
of
collection/sorting
collection/sorting
cost cost borne borne borne by
by
municipality municipality /
/
households households
households
Italy 83 17
Comment
Comment
The principle is that 100% of costs are
covered by the PRO, but the estimated
position is 83% 258
France 65 35 Still an accurate assessment in 2009 259
Ireland 68 - 92 8 - 32
Spain 65 35
Finland 7 93
Greece 0 100
Source: Perchards (2005), and updates based on personal communications
Repak estimates – Repak paid an average
domestic subsidy of €77 per tonne in 2008
and estimate that the direct cost base is in
the region of €84 to €113 (before receipt of
income from sale of recyclates) 260
In terms of waste prevention, the picture for all packaging, in Figure 13-2, is not
particularly clear. It is likely that this is somewhat affected by differing perceptions
regarding reporting requirements as well as different methodologies for reporting of
data. Whilst Belgium, Austria and Sweden have a smaller waste generation per capita
than the EU15 average, Germany and Luxembourg do not (despite the high charges
per tonne of packaging in Germany). 261 However, other reports (see section 13.5.2
below), suggest that in an earlier period (from 1991 to 2000), there was a waste
prevention impact. The packaging waste generation per capita also reflects the
wealth and consumption habits of the country. Unfortunately the household/nonhousehold
split of packaging waste was not obtainable for all countries, but this
would certainly help shed additional light on the situation. Another complicating factor
might be the presence of re-use targets and deposit refund schemes in some
countries.
What is interesting is that by some measures, the Irish system does not appear to
perform especially well, on a comparative basis. For example, in terms of what might
be an appropriate target for packaging, the recycling target is a useful driver but it
does not incentivise waste prevention. It could be that a more suitable target, which
would reward waste prevention, would be a target to ensure residual waste packaging
is below a specified level. For the old EU-15, this is shown in Figure 13-3.
258 Personal communication with Enzo Favoino of the Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza, June 2009.
259 Personal communication with Pascal Gislais, June 2009.
260 Personal communication with Tony O’Sullivan, Repak, June 2009.
261 European Environment Agency website, accessed January 2009,
http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=2696