Packaging f irms’ rates of recycling ‘out by third’

PACKAGING firms have been accused of exaggerating the amount of plastic they recycle.

Official figures are over-stated by about a third, according to research by waste consultancy Eunomia.

The firm claims the weight of material sent for recycling is being inflated because it contains moisture, contaminants and labelling. Much of the plastic is also so poor in quality it cannot be re-used.

The data is collated and published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and is based partly on figures supplied by companies in the packaging industry.

According to official statistics, Britain produced 2.26million tonnes of plastic packaging waste in 2016 and recycled almost 44.9 per cent of it.

But Dr Dominic Hogg of Eunomia said: ‘No one believes these figures.’

He said when packaging is placed on the market it is clean, dry and free from extra materials such as labels.

But when it is initially collected for recyling it is heavier because of labels and moisture.

Packaging firms, manufacturers and others, such as supermarkets, are required to pay towards the cost of collection and recycling of plastic they create under a ‘producer responsibility’ regime.

But the money raised through this system is relatively small and most of the financial burden is passed on to local councils and taxpayers.

Dr Hogg said the system for auditing the amount of plastic packaging that is produced and how much is recycled is not tight enough.

‘The system of producer responsibility is failing. It has allowed problems with plastic packaging to grow,’ he said.

A Government plan to reform the system should require businesses to pay much more towards the cost of collecting and recycling waste, he said. And the introduction of a deposit and return scheme on drinks bottles and cans could also boost collection and recycling. Producers of other packaging should be charged fees that really reflect how much they are generating, said Dr Hogg.

To comply with the producer responsibility regime, packaging firms demonstrate their spending on recycling by purchasing a credit – a Packaging Recovery Note (PRN) – from a recycling firm, which then spends the money on improving services.

However, none of the money raised goes to local councils.

At the same time, critics argue there is no clear information on how the cash is spent.

The PRN operation is run by a group of compliance firms. The main operator is Valpak which told BBC News: ‘The producer responsibility system was deliberately designed by government and industry to meet required recycling targets at minimum cost. It was not intended to cover all the costs (of recycling).’

A spokesman said it estimated that producers contribute £100million a year towards recycling, which is between 25 and 30 per cent of what they estimate is the total recycling bill.

It said there was no evidence of producers deliberately mis-reporting figures on plastic packaging and recycling.

Elena Polisano, Oceans Campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said the packaging industry’s claims for the recycling of plastic and bottles are ‘misleading wishful thinking’ at best.

She said: ‘The current system looks very much like a conspiracy against the taxpayer, with industry in control, no transparency and the rest of us paying their bills. The public know our tottering waste system and the badly designed packaging clogging it up require significant reform, and we won’t settle for greenwash and spin.’

‘Wishful thinking at best’