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

This is likely to have been dependent upon the weight based payments made by
obligated entities, and the targets the scheme is required to meet. Some materials
are lower in weight, but some of these, notably plastics, are more expensive to
recycle.
Reuse systems that had been based on glass (such as in Denmark and Finland) have
been encouraged through tax policy to remain reuse rather than one-way, but start to
move to PET bottles. This was the case after the Finnish tax was introduced in 1994,
as shown in Table 13-8. Where legislative support has not been in place for reusable
systems, these have tended to dramatically diminish.
Table 13-8: Finnish Packaging Mix
247
1995 1995 Market Market Share Share %
%
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes
1999 1999 Estimated Estimated
Estimated
Market Market Market Share Share % %
%
1995 1995-9 1995 9 Growth Growth Growth %
%
Cans 13 16 25
Refillable Glass 77 64 -18
Non-refillable Glass 0 0 0
Refillable PET/PEN 9 19 97
Non-refillable PET/PEN 0 0 0
Total 100 100 -2
Source: Study on Environmental Taxes and Charges in the EU, 2001
There are a number of drivers for technical innovation in packaging and so it is not
always simple to assign change to a particular one. For example, lightweighting of
aluminium cans would be driven by the price of the material, so the producer
responsibility fee would have to be high in order to contribute more inducement.
Some of the recent packaging changes do however point towards single material use,
such as the all cardboard packaging for Duracell batteries or some small electrical
appliances. In addition, the increase in use of re-usable packaging – particularly for
haulage of products in crates / pallets has been incentivised by producer
responsibility.
13.8 Social and Distributional Consequences
The cost of packaging waste collection and disposal is covered either by municipal
charges or by a producer responsibility organisation. See Table 13-6 for the split in
Europe. Where the majority of the cost is covered by the producer responsibility
organisation, it is recouped via the producers from the cost of their products.
Otherwise, it is charged directly to the householders either as a flat charge or a
mixture of fixed and variable (by use) charges.
13.9 Complementary Policies
In a number of countries deposit refund systems are used in conjunction with
producer responsibility. They are an attempt to increase recycling rates and address
the problem of littering by giving an incentive to the consumer to take back the
container. A one-way container tax is complementary to producer responsibility,