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

not possible to evaluate different types of collection systems, there are some
interesting drivers of good performance represented here.
The collection rate in Belgium is significantly higher than in other countries. This
would seem in part to be explained by the relatively low number of inhabitants per
collection point which is an indicator of scheme convenience, which tends to lead to
higher participation (the Irish system is based upon similar high density approaches).
Germany has a very similar number of inhabitants per collection point and has the
second highest collection rate of the four countries in Table 25-3.
Other reasons contributing to Belgium’s success rate include the fact that the
national battery association BEBAT has been in place for some time (since 1996) and
that more money has been spent on publicity and communications than in any of the
other three countries. Linked to this is the fact that a unique way was being used
(though this has since been replicated in Italy and Denmark) in Belgium to finance
waste portable battery treatment. A 1996 law exempted batteries from what was
effectively an environmental tax (€0.50 + VAT per battery) if a return system was
established for the collecting and recycling of portable batteries. This exemption
required specific collection targets to be met (65% by 2004). Funding was met by a
€0.1239 + VAT per battery charge to be paid by the consumer (see Section 15.3.3).
This means that not only is the Belgian system is very well funded, but there are also
high statutory collection targets to meet.
A recent comprehensive portable battery collection trial in the UK 555 is worth
analysing because it compares a wide range of collection methods. The Waste and
Resources Action Programme (WRAP) sought to examine the most cost effective way
of collecting batteries to meet the targets under the forthcoming Directive. The trials
involved assessing a variety of collection methods including kerbside collection,
retailer banks, community drop-off and postal return. These trials ran from April 2005
to March 2008.
25.6.1.1 Kerbside Schemes
In the second year of the trial 12 kerbside collection trials were running across the
UK, servicing approximately 444,000 households in a mixture of high-rise, urban and
rural areas. Householders in the trial areas receive a dedicated collection container
for their batteries (either sealable bags or a small cardboard box). This was set out
with other kerbside materials on the appropriate day of collection (frequency of
collection varies from weekly to quarterly). There was a huge variation between the
tonnages collected per household across individual kerbside schemes due to the
different scheme features as well as the local characteristics of areas served. Overall,
the kerbside systems delivered 0.127kg per household in the second year of the
trials.
555 WRAP (2008) Household Battery Collection Trials: April 2005 – March 2008, Final Report,
November 2008. http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Batteries_report_-_final.c6d1d62e.6153.pdf
470
29/09/09