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

323
in in in packaging, packaging, packaging, but but but it it it would would would have have have little little impact impact impact on on on total total total litter litter. litter litter Other litter surveys
undertaken around the world have reached the same conclusion. Through Repak,
Irish industry is already helping to combat litter, and it is unlikely that a deposit
would result in significant cost savings for Irish local authorities on litter
abatement activities.
A problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the relevant indicator regarding
litter is the measure used in the Litter Survey. This actually measures ‘counts’ of litter.
It could be argued that the disamenity effect of litter is a function more of its volume,
and possibly, its potential to persist, than the number of items (i.e. the counts). In this
respect, it is worth reporting that the 2007 National Litter Survey reports that the two
most prominent items in litter in terms of counts are cigarette related litter,
accounting for 46.7% of counts, and food related litter, accounting for 28% of counts.
The majority of the two combined– though certainly requiring clean-up – are less
visible cigarette ends and chewing gum. Chewing gum clearly has the potential to
cause nuisance in its own particular way. After these categories, the component with
the highest number of counts is packaging items, at 11.75%, of which around 5.64% -
roughly half – were beverage containers. 354
Given the relative insignificance – in volume terms – of chewing gum and cigarette
ends, it might reasonably be considered that beverage containers could actually
constitute a significant proportion of litter when considered in volume terms. As a
result, one might argue that they are not as insignificant – in terms of their
contribution to the disamenity associated with litter – as the count number would
suggest if, as seems not entirely implausible, some of the litter-related disamenity
experienced by communities relates to litter’s visibility.
Furthermore, in terms of value of materials in the litter stream, their contribution may
also be significant. It is notable that the contribution of beverage containers to the
litter count associated with packaging is around 50%, even though in weight terms,
such containers account for only 10% or so of packaging in the waste stream. In other
words, where packaging is concerned, beverage containers appear to figure in a
disproportionately significant manner within litter. Hence, whilst many argue that
deposits only address a fraction of all packaging, their effect on litter may address a
form of packaging which contributes disproportionately to the problem of litter.
In jurisdictions such as Hawaii, where the prevalence of beverage containers in litter
has been a motivation for the scheme, the problem also extends to pollution of the
sea. One report from the State of Hawaii shows how beverage containers have
changed in terms of their prevalence in litter (debris) over time. 355 The data are
shown in Table 16-3 and Table 16-4.
354 TOBIN (2008) Litter Monitoring Body: System Results 2007, The National Litter Pollution Monitoring
System Survey, Report for DoEHLG, June 2008,
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Waste/LitterPollution/NationalLitterMonitoringSystem/Publica
tionsDocuments/FileDownLoad,18616,en.pdf
355 State Of Hawaii Department Of Health (2008) Pursuant To Sections 342g-102.5(H), 342g-114.5(B),
And 342g-123, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Requiring The Department Of Health To Give A Report On The
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes