The lack of any firm commitment to higher packaging recycling targets came in the governments Waste Review which was published just an hour after the influential Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP) published its annual report. In its report the ACP had recommended that packaging recycling targets be raised to 69.1% by 2020 and called for a step change in the recovery of waste plastic packaging.
In the Waste Review document, the governmentnotes that packaging recycling rates have doubled since 1997 to 62% in 2009.
But, it points out that recycling rates for plastics and aluminium packaging which are very energy intensive to produce – stand at 24% and 41% respectively, meaning that recycling more of the two materials needs to be a priority.
The Review also acknowledges concerns about the transparency of the PRN system andconcerns thatproducers do not cover the full costs of collecting and recycling waste packaging.
However, the document stresses that the UK has met, and in some cases exceeded, the minimum recovery and recycling targets set in the EU Packaging Directive and says that it would not make any sense to significantly change the producer responsibility system because the directive is not due to be revieweduntil 2014.
Explaining some of the reasoning for not changing the targets, the Review says:The EU Packaging Directive is due to be revised in the next few years. It would not make sense to make fundamental changes to the current producer responsibility regime ahead of this revision. Depending on the reach of a revised Directive, this could lead to two sets of changes in relatively quick succession, with the risk of excessive costs on business.
Instead, we intend to review the producer responsibility system in time for a new Packaging Directive (expected from 2014). A final decision on the future shape of the producer responsibility system will be taken in the light of the scope and requirements of the new Directive.
Targets
With regards to targets, Defra does commit to consulting on increased packaging recycling targets from 2013-17 and a split target for glass to incentivise glass recycling into remelt.
But, it but does not make any promises as to how ambitious these might be or give any timeline for when the consultation might take place, or if the plans will be necessarily be put into practice.
It says: We intend to consult on increased recycling targets on packaging producers from 2013 to 2017. The scale of the increases we consult on will depend on our Impact Assessment, which will consider issues such as affordability for businesses and government. We will also consult on establishing a sub-target for recycling of glass into re-melt applications. The Government will make a final decision in the 2012 Budget.
ACP report
The 2010/11 annual report by the ACP – which advises government on packaging policy points out that the UK is the best country in Europe for keeping packaging to a minimum.
But, noting the substantial difference between actual delivery and public perception it recommends keeping the foot on the accelerator and calls on the supply chain to make continual improvements from design through to recovery.
The report lists 12 recommendations based on its first years work including a call for higher packaging recycling targets rising to a 69.1% recycling rate by 2020 (see table). In 2010, the UK recycled and composted 60.7% of its packaging waste At present, targets have only been set up for 2011 and 2012 and these have been criticised for being unambitious (see letsrecycle.com story).
Other recommendations include reviewing the impact home shopping is having on packaging, the important role of collectors of materials for recycling to ensure quality materials find a market and the suggestion that Government should set higher targets in the coming years to incentivise recovery.
ACP chair Bob Lisney said: We have spent much of the first year tackling all the issues across the supply chain so that we could have a set of recommendations which set us on a journey to some sound 2020 outcomes.
We now plan to do more communications to explain the journey as well as getting on with some more key issues which are important to help deliver the step change in recovery that will be necessary over the next few years if we are to meet some quite demanding objectives.
Plastics
On plastics packaging, the ACP claims that there needs to be a step change in recovery rates. It broadly comes out in favour of recycling rather than energy recovery andsays that a 45% level of recycling by 2020 would be achievable.
The ACP adds that, while energy recovery clearly has a role to play, there needs to be a balance of systems and facilities in order to safeguard against plastic packaging being landfilled. It recommends a 70% target for plastic bottle packaging and a 60% recommended goal for plastic film. Furthermore, it includes a target for mixed plastics such as yoghurt pots and trays of 25% by 2020.
To achieve this it states that over 50% of local authorities would need to adopt mixed plastics as part of their kerbside collection schemes. It claims this is a matter of turning on the tap in order to stimulate investment in the necessary treatment infrastructure for mixed plastic packaging.
Metals
The ACP is very positive on recovering more steel packaging, saying that the material will be captured in new infrastructure, often provided by the PFI Private Finance Initiative process. This is in part down to the fact that quality is not an issue for the steel sector as it can use material recovered from incinerators and mechanical treatment plants.
A significant amount of aluminium still needs to be recovered with only 43% likely in 2011 in face of the 65% proposed industry target for 2020, it says. Again, the report suggests recovering material from incinerators and mechanical processes, including from residual waste, but, apart from pointing to the high value of aluminium packaging for recycling, gives little additional information as to how aluminium will be recovered.
Paper
On paper and cardboard the ACP says relatively little, noting that high volumes of cardboard are already recycled and suggesting that some more cardboard be collected from smaller retailers and from the household.
The report spends more time on cartons, such as Tetrapaks, and says that these are becoming increasingly popular. It suggests targets for recycling of cartons, including a stretch target of 33% by 2013. It states: This will be achieved by encouraging a shift away from the industrys own dedicated bring bank collection system to kerbside collection.
About 65% of the UK is covered by the bring-bank system, and 30% of the UK now has kerbside collection of cartons. And, the study notes that the carton industry is talking about developing a processing plant for used cartons in the UK.
Wood
On wood, the dynamics of the market are working against packaging recycling according to the ACP with grade A packaging waste wood often being used for combustion in boilers. So, the ACP says that increasing wood packaging recycling targets post-2012 does remain an option but appears to suggest that generally more wood is being recovered for biomass and boiler uses.
The ACP indicates that the major issue for glass packaging is quality, with it stating that the best quality material is obtained through bring bank collections. However, it claims these are not widely used enough to help local authorities achieve their recycling targets.
Therefore, it claims an industry specification would need to be produced to ensure that glass being collected at the kerbside is of high enough quality to go into remelt applications. It claims that adequate collection systems are integral in ensuring glass of high enough quality is available for the remelt market.
Recycling targets recommended by the ACP
| Material | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paper | 72.7% | 74.6% | 76.5% | 78.4% | 80.3% | 82.2% | 84.1% | 86.1% |
| Plastic | 28.7% | 31% | 33.3% | 35.6% | 37.9% | 40.2% | 42.5% | 45% |
| Aluminium (exc laminates and composites) | 45% | 46% | 48% | 52% | 55% | 59% | 62% | 65% |
| Steel | 66% | 68% | 69% | 71% | 73% | 75% | 77% | 78% |
| Glass | 60.7% | 61.2% | 62% | 62.7% | 63.5% | 64.2% | 65% | 65.6% |
| Wood | 38.2 | 43.9 | 50.6 | 56.3 | 62 | 67.8 | 70.6 | 70.6 |
| Total (accounting for over achievement in wood (75.4) and paper (81.9 2013 – 2017) | 60% | 60.5% | 61.6% | 63.1% | 64.4% | 66% | 67.6% | 69.1% |
Local authorities
For local authorities, the ACP recommends that WRAP develops as a matter of urgency a generic tender clause for local authorities to use when tendering contracts to ensure that the needs of industry are met in terms of the quality and types of recyclable material which are collected.
The ACP also says it will evaluate the benefits of local authorities joining forces in consortia to market their recyclable materials.
Local authorities, says the committee, said that they felt they were bearing an unfair proportion of the costs to collect packaging despite the producer responsibility or PRN system.
The ACP considered alternative income streams such as direct payments from obligated parties to local authorities through mechanisms like Green Dot and Fost Plus used elsewhere in Europe – effectively creating a collection obligation for packaging producers.
However, introducing such a scheme was deemed by the ACP to create too significant a change from existing arrangements.
A change to the structure of packaging targets to require more of the targets to be met from primary packaging (perhaps by targeting materials more specifically) or from household or municipal waste streams was also considered in order to increase the price of PRNs from these sources. However, the ACP thought these higher costs should be seen as a shift in the balance of compliance costs, increasing the share borne by packaging producers but reducing the cost to local authorities.
The ACP saw considerable merit instead in looking at non-regulatory options. These, it claims, could include voluntary commitments by the main producers to a timetable to increase recycled content in packaging where that is appropriate.
Register for free to comment