INTRODUCTION

  British Glass is the trade association for the UK glass industry representing all five sectors of the industry: flat glass (windows, windscreens etc), containers (bottles, jars etc), domestic glass (drinking glasses, ovenware, crystal glass etc), fibreglass (insulation etc) and scientific glass (laboratory glassware etc). British Glass has around one hundred members—approximately forty full members (glass manufacturers and manipulators) and sixty associate members (suppliers to the industry etc).

  We are responding directly to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) on the content of legislation associated with the Environment Agency, such as the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. Here we offer comments on the actual implementation of the legislation by the Environment Agency (EA). It is worth stating that we supported the Confederation of British Industry's (CBI) recent survey into the EA and believe that the views of our members reflect those set out in the survey results.

INQUIRY INTO THE WORK OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

  The EA is responsible for administering and policing a number of pieces of legislation which impact on the glass industry. We have discussed these in turn below.

(i)   The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations

  (a)  Data on packaging handled: The EA is responsible for collecting data on packaging handled in a given year by companies obligated under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations (the "Packaging Regulations"). The EA receives fees in excess of £1.5 million per annum from companies obligated under this legislation. We are concerned that this very significant level of funding is not being used effectively to both police or administer the Packaging Regulations. The availability of accurate data is essential if we are to accurately measure progress towards the European packaging recovery and recycling targets. It is also important for planning demand for Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs) and hence the level of funding which will be available to invest in recycling and recovery systems.

  The quality of the data collected so far, however, has been very disappointing. The first round of data collection occurred in 1997 for packaging handled in 1996. In this round, the figures for the amount of filled glass packaging (ie containing a product) imported into the UK was reported at over 750,000 tonnes. However, the figure for the amount of filled glass imported into the UK for the following year (1997 data reported in 1998) had fallen to less than 450,000 tonnes—a drop of over 300,000 tonnes. We have queried the figure several times with the EA and the DETR but have not yet received a satisfactory response. The implications of this are that 300,000 tonnes of imported glass is not being paid for through the PRN system.

  The data reported in 1999 for packaging handled in 1998 was reported by industry to the EA/Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) back in April. The final Agency figures have still not been made available which makes it very difficult for industry to plan for PRN demand. We would recommend that the data be made available as soon as possible each year, but by the end of May at the latest. This gives the Agency two months to collate the data.

  (b)  Data on packaging recycled/recovered: The EA is responsible for collecting data on the amount of used packaging recycled and recovered in England and Wales each year. For glass, consistently over 80 per cent of the used containers collected are recycled by the container glass manufacturers and as the trade federation for the glass industry, we collect statistics from our members on the amount of used glass packaging they recycle. In 1998 the tonnage of recycled glass reported by our members (including glass recycled in Scotland and exported for recycling) stood at around 480,000 tonnes. The combined EA/SEPA figure, however, is 658,000 tonnes, a difference of nearly 200,000 tonnes. Thus, in addition to the 300,000 tonnes of imported glass not being paid for, there is 200,000 tonnes of glass being reported as recycled which we cannot trace. It is no wonder that the PRN market for glass has been in such disarray. We have offered to help analyse the reported numbers in order to try and help everyone understand why there are such differences, but the EA has not taken up our offer. Accuracy of reporting in this area is key to re-establishing the market for glass PRNs and hence obtaining the injection of funds needed if we are to meet the 2001 targets. Such matters also need to be resolved before we can report reliably to Brussels.

  (c)  Policing the Regulations: We are concerned that all the companies above the cut-off threshold (50 tonnes of packaging handled and more than £5 million turnover) are currently not complying with the Packaging Regulations. It is the responsibility of the Agencies to pursue non-compliers and there is inadequate evidence that this is occurring.

(ii)   Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

  We are concerned that the EA is not taking an integrated approach to environmental matters, including legislation and economic instruments. We are concerned that the emphasis should be on the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO) and not on the progressive individual implementation of separate, sometimes clashing, recommendations. This is especially true now that the Local Authority Advisory Unit is under the auspices of the EA rather than the DETR.

  We are also unhappy with the EA's proposals for a charging scheme involving costs of £1,125 per day particularly when they are free to decide how many days effort need to be involved in a particular task. These rates are much higher than would apply to independent consultants. It should not be the case that the Agency can, through its monopoly position, impose such charges. It also gives the impression that it is not as efficient as commercial organisations. Furthermore it is understood that companies will be exposed to these arbitrary rates whether or not they have taken a responsible and beneficial approach to their environmental obligations. Those who have done so should surely be charged for a smaller number of man-days.

  All of this sends out poor messages to responsible companies and also to local authorities who hitherto should not have considered Statutory Duties as profit centres.

Alison J Morris

British Glass

October 1999