Packaging money not reaching local authorities

Drawing from his own experiences with glass consortia and authorities in Hertfordshire, the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee's Vice Chair Durk Reyner said: “It is our belief that the introduction of these targets has had no direct effect upon local authority investment in waste collection or recycling.”

Chaired by Baroness O&#39Ca;thain, the Trade and Industry Committee was also given evidence on the costs to industry associated with the 1994 European directive packaging and packaging waste by Chris Murphy of the Institute of Waste Management (IWM), Professor Chris Coggins and Biffpack's Phil Conran and James Butler.

Biffpack and the IWM also agreed that the targets set out for 2001 have done little to increase the levels of UK recycling that wouldn't have occurred without such regulations.

Domestic waste

However, with tough new targets set for 2006, the situation now needs real change. Mr Reyner said: “Analysis carried out by the Advisory Committee on Packaging Task Force shows that most of the increased tonnage will have to come from the domestic waste stream, since the easy pickings of commercial and industrial sources have largely been exhausted.”

But making more use of domestic waste will prove expensive, a cost that Biffa Recycling Manager Phil Conran felt the industry will not be able to absorb. He said: “The environmental burden of reducing waste into landfill and of encouraging alternative and more sustainable solutions to product design and disposal will rest with the consumer ultimately.”

Public attitudes

Local authorities now have their own statutory targets to achieve, but according to LARAC, the expense involved with kerbside collection could mean a minimum of two years before such systems could be put in place.

According to Mr Reyner, public attitudes towards waste will need to change before then. He said: “Evidence from trial schemes and research suggests that the public need to see the very tangible effects of the purchasing and disposal habits to be persuaded to change.”

Professor Chris Coggins, giving evidence for the IWM, said that he saw a need for greater producer responsibility.

“It is time that obligated businesses accept their full commitment to funding products from &#39c;radle to grave',” he said. “There is increasing pressure from a wide range of stakeholders – including investors – to accept a wider spectrum of corporate environmental and social responsibility.

PRN worries

The Lords committee also heard about industry concerns with the PRN system – something they may hear from another angle when Wastepack give evidence next week.

Mr Reyner said: “The basic failure of the PRN system as has happened this year will undermine any future targets unless the system is brought back into proper operation.”

Mr Conran also pointed to industry fears over how PRN money is spent. In detailed written evidence, Biffpack said that while the PRN money did support some reprocessing, “in general, a substantial proportion of the PRN money was used to boost reprocessor profits rather than invested in growth and this is borne out, to some extent, by the lack of growth of UK reprocessing, especially in paper.”

He added: “There needs to be a change in the PRN system to ensure that both business and local authorities can see more direct PRN benefit from their recycling activites.”