• New research disproves claims that a variable rate DRS would be too complex
• 85% of respondents considered a variable rate system ‘easy to understand’
• 61% of respondents support higher deposits for larger containers

New research released earlier today (17 March) disproves the claim that a variable rate deposit return scheme (DRS) would be too complex for consumers. The YouGov insight suggests that 85% of Brits consider a variable system easy to understand and support higher deposits for larger containers.

Commissioned by Alupro, the aluminium packaging recycling organisation, 2,000 adults across Britain were surveyed about best practice DRS design and whether a variable rate deposit fee would add unnecessary confusion.

The results firmly rebutted this view, with more than four in five respondents suggesting that the concept of a DRS was easy to grasp (84%), and that the idea of varying the deposit value based on container size was equally simplistic (85%). Just over half of adults (55%) agreed that the deposit fee should be lower for smaller items and higher for larger ones, while three in ten (30%) thought the deposit amount should be the same across all sizes of packaging. Only a small minority admitted that they were undecided (15%).

These findings contradict government research from 2019, which suggested that a variable rate would be far too complex for householders.* Public understanding of deposit return schemes has changed significantly and appreciation of best practice design has fast become a discussion point.

Rick Hindley, executive director at Alupro, commented: “Adopting best practice design from the outset will prove pivotal to the long-term success of England, Wales and Northern Ireland’s deposit return scheme.

“Our independent research aimed to analyse real-world views regarding awareness of DRS design and understanding of deposit fees. According to the results, it’s safe to say that now, more than ever, householders want the best solution for the future – not the cheapest or the fastest.

“As the government discusses the design of our national scheme, we implore senior decision makers to take these findings into close consideration and not to choose simplicity over sustainability. The success of the scheme is important for every household, so we’re calling for their views to be recognised.”

Timiko Cranwell, Legal and Corporate Affairs Director at Budweiser Brewing Group UK&I, added: “Budweiser Brewing Group is committed to promoting circular packaging and responsible consumption. We believe that a variable rate deposit level is the foundation of a well-designed DRS, as it allows individuals to manage their own consumption, without incentivising the purchase of larger containers, or higher alcohol content, in the interest of saving money.”

Aiming to tackle plastic pollution, increase recycling rates, improve recyclate quality and minimise litter, England, Wales and Northern Ireland’s long-awaited DRS is expected to come into force in 2023. The scheme will see a deposit value added to the price of a beverage product in store, which will be refunded to the customer when empty packaging is returned to a designated collection point.

While a variable rate fee would see containers allocated with a deposit value based on container size, a flat rate model would apply a fixed fee to all beverage containers. This unsophisticated approach could see customers charged an additional £4.80 for a 24-can multipack (on top of product purchase price) compared to just 80p for a 2 litre plastic bottle.

ENDS

*http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20253&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=deposit&GridPage=2&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2001 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18th – 19th February 2021. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Alupro, the aluminium packaging recycling organisation, has unveiled its brand-new Recycle Aluminium website, to educate consumers about the infinitely recyclable benefits of aluminium packaging. Working to fulfil the industry’s obligation to meet recycling targets, the site is an educational hub, featuring the latest data, how-to guides, blog posts, videos, fact sheets and more.

In the UK alone, more than 12 billion items of aluminium packaging are sold every year – from beverage cans and foil trays, to cooking foil, aerosol containers, caps and closures. Harnessing the circular properties of aluminium, Alupro aims to educate consumers about the benefits of recycling.

However, while 56% of the UK’s aluminium was recycled in 2019, we still have a way to go to achieve our target of 100%. Education and information is key to further improving recycling rates and the new website aims to inspire, inform and encourage national behavioural change.

Rick Hindley, executive director at Alupro, commented: “Last year, more aluminium packaging was collected for reprocessing than ever before. At Alupro, we are striving to achieve our vision of  a recycling rate close to 100%, with information and education playing a pivotal role. Our new website will not only provide valuable information to consumers, but also encourage households to make better and more informed decisions when it comes to disposing of their valuable aluminium packaging.

“With a whole host of useful advice articles, blogs, videos and fact sheets, each explaining how, when and why we should recycle, we hope it will prove a valuable resource.”

Consumers are encouraged to view the new website here – https://recyclealuminium.org.uk/ . For more information about Alupro, visit www.alupro.org.uk.

ENDS

The UK’s thriving aluminium industry, which employs more than 20,000 workers nationwide, would be stung with an annual production shortfall of 4.7 billion units and the very real possibility of plant closures if the UK adopts a flat rate deposit return scheme (DRS). That’s one of the key findings from the Aluminium Packaging Recycling Organisation (Alupro), which has today launched an extensive report analysing the implications of a poorly designed national scheme.

Developed in partnership with independent think-tank London Economics, alongside experts from across the UK packaging sector, the document analyses the environmental and economic implications of implementing a flat rate versus a variable rate deposit fee.

Aiming to tackle plastic pollution, increase recycling rates, improve recyclate quality and minimise litter, England, Wales and Northern Ireland’s long-awaited DRS is expected to come into force in 2023. The scheme will see a deposit value added to the price of a beverage product in store, which will be refunded to the customer when empty packaging is returned to a designated collection point.

While a variable rate fee would see containers allocated with a deposit value based on container size, a flat rate model would apply a fixed fee to all beverage containers. This unsophisticated approach could see customers charged an additional £4.80 for a 24-can multipack (on top of product purchase price) compared to just 80p for a 2 litre plastic bottle, which research suggests would result in 60% of shoppers opting for larger, cheaper, but much less sustainable plastic alternatives – resulting in an immediate decline in demand (c.11%) for easy-to-recycle aluminium cans.

Alongside the implications for aluminium beverage can demand, Alupro’s report uncovers a number of wider concerns posed by a flat rate model. Indeed, modelling suggests that a fixed fee model would result in 10% lower return volumes in total than a variable rate system and plastic could become the most used beverage packaging on supermarket shelves.

Furthermore, with shoppers substituting convenient multipacks for cost-effective (but often impractical) large bulk containers, the UK could see a significant increase in portion sizes, or experience an immediate and unnecessary hike in product waste.

Conversely, a variable rate system would see the government achieve their 90% return rate almost a year earlier, leading to a higher recycling rate and less litter on the streets.

Rick Hindley, executive director at Alupro, commented: “While we are fully supportive of a well-designed DRS, research surrounding best practice design is limited. Our report aims to fill the gap and provide extensive modelling into the real-world implications of differing deposit fee options.

“While some may think that a flat rate deposit fee would be easier to implement, this isn’t necessarily the case. What’s more, it would result in a whole host of negative implications – a number of which the scheme is fundamentally trying to solve. Our concern is that simplicity will override sustainability in senior-level decision making. As such, we are imploring the government to take our statistics and modelling into close consideration when discussing the design of the UK’s DRS.”

To read the full report click here

 

ENDS

While a ‘typo’ from DEFRA has seemingly set a hare running regarding delayed timescales, the government assures us that much-needed reforms to the extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme will be agreed and implemented by 2023. The second round of formal consultations will take place in early 2021, following their delayed release due to Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic.

One of the four consultations arising from the Resources and Waste Strategy (2018), EPR reform aims to revolutionise how the management of our waste packaging is organised and funded. Incentivising producers to embrace packaging that is easily reused, dismantled or recycled at end of life, it will replace the existing system, which has been in place since 1997.

With a ‘full net cost’ system proposed, reform will see producers pay the entire cost of managing their packaging at end of life – from collection, transport and recycling, to the clean-up of littered items, consumer education and disposal of non-recyclable items. Currently, UK packaging producers only pay a small percentage of these costs, with local authorities picking up the remainder.

However, while this system has been widely agreed as the most effective solution, it’s only fair that producers know exactly what they’re paying for through a completely transparent mechanism that accurately apportions responsibility. The quality of data is imperative to setting these parameters, as well as ensuring that every material ‘pays its way’.

 

Eco-modulation and its pivotal role

To ensure fair and effective implementation of the full net cost model across the packaging industry, eco-modulation is perceived to be the most viable mechanism to allocate fees. A relatively simple principle, eco-modulation dictates a fair structure through analysing the total cost of managing packaging (at end of life) and ensuring that producers refund the expenditure that their products create.

Materials that are considered more difficult to collect, transport and recycle (such as pouches and laminates) are given a higher rate of tax; while fees for more sustainable, easy to recycle materials (such as aluminium foil trays) are suitably lower. This approach not only fairly spreads the cost of managing end of life waste costs, but also incentives circular economy thinking and penalises the outdated ‘take, make, dispose’ model.

 

Data accuracy and EPR implementation

Although eco-modulation seems the shining light in EPR reform, the calculations behind the system are critical to ensure fairness and equality among different material types. In the UK, the scheme administrator will be responsible for analysing end of life costs and defining a fee structure accordingly. Understanding the costs faced by local authorities is therefore critical.

This is where the value of transparent, accurate, quality data becomes pivotal. Up-to-date, accurate insight into key variables is the backbone of EPR reform, not just a nice to have. To create an effective structure, the scheme administrator needs granular insight into the following areas (as a minimum):

• The volume of material placed on the market (by type and by producer)
• The amount of packaging collected by local authorities and businesses
• True recycling rates (by packaging type, per local authority)

Without sufficient data, it would be almost impossible to accurately calculate the full net cost of recycling. Fee structure would become reliant on broader estimates, which has the potential to create inaccuracy across the system. Resultingly, easy-to-recycle items could end up subsidising the harder-to-recycle items – a scenario that we must avoid.

 

The trouble with national data quality

But while quality is key, the UK’s dated processes mean that disaggregated, decentralised and non-standardised data is unfortunately commonplace. Local authority insight is poor, with collections assessed by analysing tonnes of recyclate as a percentage of total waste (via tools such as WasteDataFlow) and very few providing accurate insight into specific material types (and volumes).

The only other national data source available is the National Packaging Waste Database (NPWD), which assesses performance against whether enough packaging recovery notes (PRNs) have been issued to cover the packaging placed on the market. Unfortunately, both databases are populated by both local authorities and independent packaging companies simultaneously. Data entry is open to interpretation, with different rules applying to different geographies and no enforceable penalties incurred for missing data or late entry.

Good quality data is critical, but infrastructure is alarmingly lacking. In result, our ‘reformed’ EPR system could be based on wildly inaccurate data. Setting a baseline will be challenging, nigh on impossible, if we rely on a flawed data management system developed almost 30 years ago. It is simply inadequate for the task in hand.

 

Finding a solution to drive successful EPR reform

So, while our national focus continues to shine a spotlight on rushing through EPR reform, maybe we need to take a step back and evaluate whether we have the data in hand to effectively design a fair and effective solution in the first place. The worst case scenario would be using inaccurate data to create yet another poorly-functioning EPR scheme that doesn’t deliver upon the objectives it aims to tackle – in essence, taking two steps sideways, not forward.

But while this view may seem negative, creating a process to capture and manage data correctly should be a relatively simple task. All we need is a strong, single system that everyone is mandated to use. This system should be backed by clear rules and deadlines, all of which should be set and enforced by a credible scheme administrator who has the authority to effectively design, dictate and manage the system.

A subset of the information should be available to the public, allowing the necessary level of transparency required for scrutiny by all shareholders.

If we were to achieve this feat, it would be possible to not only ensure the smooth reform and implementation of a new EPR scheme, but also a plethora of other waste management schemes under review. Data quality, once again, will prove instrumental to the successful future of our waste management landscape – it’s a subject we that we surely can’t continue to ignore.

 

ENDS