ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Packaging Recovery Note
167. Use of the Packaging Recovery Note to demonstrate
compliance is not specified in the Directive, but was developed
by the UK Advisory Committee on Packaging as a tool for the implementation
of the Directive within this country. In the very short time of
the Regulations' operation there has been "some disquiet"
about the way the system has developed.[312]
168. During the PRN's development it was decided
that it could be sold by reprocessors-rather than presented as
a matter of course to the provider of waste packaging-in order
to generate funds for investment in further reprocessing capacity
and to promote further compliance. We have learned that this has
allowed a speculative market to develop, to the detriment of the
Regulations' environmental benefit, and apparently also to the
surprise of both the Government and industry.[313]
We have been told that reprocessors have refused to issue the
Notes to intermediary waste collection bodies such as the independent
waste processors and may instead sell them to the highest bidder.[314]
Nor has the ability to sell been limited to the reprocessors;
anyone who owns a PRN may sell it to someone else for a profit
under the existing law, with the potential to create an inflationary
effect on the cost of compliance.
169. This has been the subject of some bitter complaints:
George Chadfield of the British Retail Consortium stated that
the system "could almost have been purpose designed to benefit
one player in the packaging chain, the reprocessors ... all that
is going to happen with the money ... is that it will go to the
benefit of those businesses";[315]
the Paper Industry Materials Organisation predicted that the market
in PRNs "will undoubtedly adversely affect the overall national
costs of compliance";[316]
and Pro Carton were concerned that the trade will "encourage
non-obligated third parties to enter the market seeking only to
take out profits".[317]
170. Bryan Bateman of the Paper Federation did not
blame companies which have succeeded in recovering more material
than is required, for wishing to profit by their success by selling
their surplus Packaging Recovery Notes to less successful companies.[318]
However, in this respect also the Regulations would appear to
be inequitable, since the holder of the material at the point
where it becomes waste will have an advantage over the originator
of that material, although the originator, too, has an obligation
to fulfil.[319]
171. To take an example, in future years the bottle
factory, the brewery and the pub might all bear an obligation
to recover waste packaging in respect of their production and
use of beer bottles; yet the bottle factory and the brewery will
not have those bottles to recover, having passed them on to the
pub. In this hypothetical example, the factory and the brewery
will have two choices: they may either seek to meet their obligations
through recovering something else-which we shall come on to shortly-or
they may, effectively, fulfil their obligations by proxy, by buying
the pub's surplus Packaging Recovery Notes for a premium.
172. While a purist might argue that the recovery
of the material is all that matters-whoever carries it out-we,
in common with our witnesses, are deeply concerned that the sale
of PRNs for profit could have a damaging effect upon a recycling
industry already burdened with high costs. It appears very uncertain
that any of the profits are being channelled, as intended, back
into recycling.
173. The third major problem which we have been able
to identify, in what is a very complex system, is that the obligation
of packaging producers to recover material may be fulfilled through
the recovery of any material regardless of the material they actually
use. Thus, manufacturers of plastic bottles can fulfil their obligations
by recovering glass or paper, provided that the amount recovered
matches the required percentage of their production of plastic.
This has provoked particularly vociferous complaints within the
paper industry because, the industry's associations claim, everybody
is using paper to fulfil their obligations as the easiest option.[320]
174. Both the Paper Federation and Pro Carton told
us that one of the purposes of the Packaging Regulations is to
encourage a better performance by waste streams (such as plastic)
which currently have low recycling rates, to meet a national target
of 50 per cent recovery for all packaging wastes.[321]
Pro Carton told us that the rate of recovery for plastic packaging
waste in 1996 was 8 per cent; for steel, 15 per cent; and for
paper, 42 per cent. It predicted that in 2001 the rate for plastic
would be 28 per cent; for steel 50 per cent and for paper 66 per
cent.[322] The predictions
suggest that while some streams will meet the target others will
not: a general dependence upon the paper and board waste stream
is identified, to "make up the shortfall".[323]
175. These groups argued that this is inequitable
and defeats the purpose of the Regulations in encouraging improvement
amongst the poorly performing streams; we were also reminded that,
should paper continue to be required to outperform, the recovery
rate for this stream may be pushed up to the point where it no
longer represents the Best Practicable Environmental Option because
"the last tonnes of packaging waste ... [will be] the most
expensive tonnes to recover ... found in the domestic waste stream."[324]
176. We were very concerned to learn of the potential
for a market in Packaging Recovery Notes and urge the Government
to take action to ensure this does not develop. We agree that
there is a case for requiring packaging handlers to fulfil part
of their obligations by recovering the actual materials which
they handle: in order that this may be monitored the Packaging
Recovery Note or other evidence of recovery presented will have
to state clearly the material it represents. The development of
material-specific Packaging Recovery Notes will enable the price
of the note to be tied to the cost of recovering the material
concerned. These amendments should be put into effect at the earliest
possible date. Measures will also need to be taken to ensure that
the money raised through the Packaging Regulations is invested
as intended in improved collection and recovery systems.
177. As previously noted, packaging and other wastes
from the manufacturing and retail sectors frequently end up in
the domestic waste stream: our next section therefore focuses
upon
the role to be played by individuals and community
organisations in managing this waste more sustainably.
312 QQ786, 788 Back
313 QQ805-809 Back
314 Ev
p 260; see also ENDS Waste Management Report No 122, Vol 177 February
1998 Back
315 Q389 Back
316 Ev
p 47 Back
317 Ev
p 85 Back
318 Q425 Back
319 Ev
pp 46-47 Back
320 Ev
pp 45, 55, 84 Back
321 Ev
p 84 Back
322 Ev
p 86 Back
323 Ev
p 84 Back
324 Ev
p 87 Back
| 
