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

320
29/09/09
higher higher higher recycling recycling recycling rate rate rate for for for all all all packaging packaging packaging of of of a a a given given given material, material, because because because beverage
beverage
containers containers represent represent too too small small small a a proportio proportion proportio n of of the total total tonnage tonnage of of that
that
packaging packaging packaging material.
material.
Drinks containers typically represent only about 10% of all packaging and the
recycling rate for beverage containers in general recycling systems is likely to
be higher than the recycling rate for all packaging of the same materials.
They then allude to the performance of Belgium in respect of the recycling of all
packaging even though this is clearly not a good comparator for reasons which the
previous extract makes clear (the targeted materials – beverage containers – are a
relatively small fraction of packaging). 348 In particular, the largest fraction of the
packaging stream is always paper and card, which is also an easy, and relatively low
cost, material to recycle. Consequently, in most countries, the packaging recycling
rate will be heavily influenced by capture of a material that is irrelevant to any
sensible discussion regarding deposit refund schemes.
348 Perchards responded to a similar criticism in a previous report, where they had earlier suggested
that the recycling rates achieved in deposit schemes were no greater than those achieved in other
countries through presenting targets related to all packaging. They responded:
We decided to make a comparison based on overall recycling rates achieved because the
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive repealed the Directive on containers of liquids for
human consumption, reflecting that the scope of policy has broadened out to all packaging. A
further expansion and/or restructuring of EU policy is now under consideration which may
result in targets for all products of specific materials. Thus, specific arrangements just for
beverage containers go against the trend in EU policy in this area.
GRA has challenged our line of argument, saying that the fact that deposit systems handle
only a small of packaging is no reason not to have a deposit system. GRA used a medical
analogy to illustrate argument – if you have a medicine that can cure 10% of the patients, but
not the other 90%, is there a reason not to use the medicine for the 10%? However, this is not
an exact analogy, because a medicine does exist for a significant proportion of the other 90%
of packaging, namely selective collection.
Several other stakeholders have also challenged the basis of our comparison, arguing that a
clearer picture would emerge from a comparison based on recycling rates for household
packaging waste alone, or, even better, of beverage containers between deposit states and
Member States relying on packaging recovery systems. Unfortunately, though, we were not
able to obtain data which would have enabled us to pursue this suggestion.
(Perchards (2005) Study on the Progress of the Implementation and Impact of Directive 94/62/EC on
the Functioning of the Internal Market, Final Report to the European Commission, May 2005). This
argument fails to counter the possibility that it might be possible to design a system which targets the
10% through one system and targets the remaining 90% through another. No one advocating deposit
refund scheme is necessarily arguing against ‘selective collection’ of, for example, cardboard, or wood.
Equally, several successful selective collection systems for packaging – notably the Belgian one
achieve high rates of recycling without targeting non-bottle plastics from households. So, the question
remains open as to whether a complementary (as opposed to a parallel) system of selective collection
and deposit refund system might be superior to either one acting independently, let alone the two
operating in parallel with duplication in scope. This question has only really been examined in any
study as far as we are aware (see later in this Section). Generally, the question regarding costs has not
been properly answered for the simple reason that the question which really matters has not been
interrogated in sufficient depth. The key variables are likely to be quite system dependent (which
selective system is being ‘replaced’ by the type of complementary system being proposed here) and
dependent upon the (assumed) costs of implementing a deposit scheme.