The minister faced questions from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee yesterday morning (17 July) as part of its inquiry into plastic packaging waste.
The wide-ranging evidence session saw Dr Coffey pressed on policies stemming from the government’s Resources and Waste Strategy, funding for local authorities, compostable plastics and recycling labelling for products.
Dr Coffey also revealed that the government is looking towards a ‘modulated fees’ extended producer responsibility (EPR) model as its favoured option from the
Green Dot
On the Green Dot, Labour MP Kerry McCarthy quizzed the minister on whether she thought that the system added to confusion amongst the public over whether certain types of packaging can be recycled.
The Green Dot is recognisable on a host of packaging goods across Europe, and if it is displayed on a product it denotes that a company has complied with packaging waste legislation within the market it is sold. However, critics claim that consumers mistake this to mean that packaging is recyclable.
Dr Coffey said that through mandating local authorities to collect a specific set of materials from the kerbside, and improving on-pack recycling labelling, the government’s Resources and Waste Strategy will help to reduce confusion about materials that are recyclable.
“We think a separate label is needed and by mandating what councils need to collect it should become more straightforward rather than the current thing where it depends on your local authority,” she said, adding: “We want the labelling to be quite clear about what can be recycled.”
This prompted questions about the Green Dot, and whether it would continue to confuse consumers if it is used on packaging, alongside any new labelling that may arise as a result of changes being looked at by the government.
She responded: “I understand that, and what I hope is that the on-pack labelling will make it much more straightforward to people and manufacturers can decide whether it is worthwhile putting that green dot on there.”
“I don’t think it is misleading because it is not suggesting the packaging is recycled.”
“I don’t think it is misleading because it is not suggesting the packaging is recycled,” she added.
Packaging reform
During the session, Dr Coffey also outlined some of Defra’s thinking about options for an EPR model for packaging, revealing that the Department favours the ‘modulated fees’ model, which would see packaging producers pay costs based upon the recyclability of the packaging they place onto the market.
The option was one of two outlined in the government’s EPR consultation in February, alongside a system where producers pay a deposit and are refunded based on the recyclability of their products.
Dr Coffey said: “In response to the consultation, particularly on modulated fee or the deposit way of dealing with packaging I think I am minded to go with a modulated fee and that is in line with what has come back from industry, but that decision has still to be finalised.”
Deposit return scheme
“I think I am minded to go with a modulated fee”
The minister also batted back concerns over the impact of a deposit return scheme (DRS) on the income for council derived from kerbside collections, if they lose out on valuable commodities such as PET plastic bottles or aluminium cans to a retailer takeback system.
This followed the statement from the Environment Secretary Michael Gove the previous day that he favoured an ‘all-in’ DRS system encompassing drinks packaging of all sizes (see letsrecycle.com story).
Responding to concerns raised by local authorities, Dr Coffey said: “What matters is that we just need to get more recycled. The kerbside recycling has plateaued by and large. In some areas its gone down in other areas its going up. We are removing the exemption so they have to collect certain categories of plastic and we are not dictating how they do it.
“I have heard their concerns but we believe that through the new EPR system, the amount of money going to local authorities for the kerbside recycling will be significant and should not alarm them in terms of what they are trying to achieve in recycling at the kerbside.”
RE: Dr Coffey and the ‘Green Dot’
When the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive was introduced in 1994, a time was set of 2 years for the EU Council to introduce a common recycling marking system for all EU Member States. When the decision came eventually in 1997, it was voluntary not mandatory, plus no common recycling symbol was adopted, which has resulted in a proliferation of recycling/identification markings, leading to much confusion to the public at large, i.e. The Green Dot – which is not a recycling symbol
What is required is a single symbol depicting that the packaging is recyclable and promoting the use of post consumer recycle material (PCR) i.e. the ‘Mobius Loop ‘. To promote the use of PCR a percentage figure depicting the amount of PCR material used to produce the packaging or product will be displayed in the centre of the loop, which was originally suggested in the Packaging Waste Directive. This approach could be used for all packaging and products. The symbol including the percentage figure could only be used with regard to materials classified as obligated packaging waste as defined in the UK Producer Responsibility (Packaging Waste) Regulations excluding process and industrial scrap. The UK needs to promote ‘end user’. markets for PCR materials within the UK, reducing the reliance on exporting packaging waste.
There would need to be a sustained promotion by UK Government to promote this symbol to the public as the only symbol relevant to recycling.
Tony Hancock – Henry Emblem
The Independent Packaging Environment and Safety Forum