In the past eight years, Keep Australia Beautiful has overseen a 20% reduction in litter by item and a 31% reduction by volume nationally, using advocacy, partnerships and research as its primary tools. Its National Litter Index is Australia's only national, annual, quantitative litter study whose independent, audited research is endorsed by all governments.
KAB is now working towards a further reduction of all litter by 20% in 2012, and this is already on target to occur under current trends.
To achieve it, KAB is fostering partnerships across across the whole community, including with businesses large and small. It uses funding provided by companies such as Coca-Cola Amatil and Hungry Jack’s to expand the reach and impact of its programs. And it uses its voice in partnerships as an opportunity to influence business. These partnerships are not always popular, but KAB considers that results such as getting a company like Coca-Cola Amatil to make bottles with 25% less plastic and use more recyclable packaging justify its means.
KAB does not support the push for a national drink container deposit scheme, which is advocated by some other environment groups. Peter McLean, national chief executive officer, explained KAB's position in a statement:
“Our view is based on a long-held and transparent preference for mechanisms that:
1. Are holistic. Drink containers only comprise a fraction of the litter stream, and we want to see all litter addressed;
2. Are based on positive engagement. We prefer flexible, tailored actions and a partnership approach;
3. Drive an anti-litter culture. South Australia leads the country in the least drink container litter, which is fantastic, but it has significantly more litter overall than a non-deposit state like Victoria. KAB aims to change littering behaviour across the board, so we’re keen on more holistic solutions;
4. Do not damage existing recycling and anti-litter schemes. Numerous studies and the views of experts such as VISY Recycling suggest that introducing deposit schemes where kerbside (yellow top bin) recycling already exists would make kerbside more expensive and could threaten its viability. We prefer initiatives that complement rather than potentially detract from what’s already working well.”
The debate about the Container Deposit Legislation was reignited by ABC TV last week. KAB is supporting instead an Industry Packaging Stewardship Scheme (Option 2b), detailed in the recent report by PwC and Wright Corporate Strategy (WCS) to manage packaging waste in Australia. It proposes an industry run co-regulatory product stewardship scheme under the PS Act based on Australia’s Litter Action Plan proposal developed by companies in the packaging and packaged goods industries.
This option is built around the industry’s proposed National Bin Network scheme. It recommends expanding the existing APC to focus on key problem areas, that is materials and goods where recycling rates are relatively low. It nominates specific outcomes related to away-from-home recycling and litter reduction, and while it deals with all packaging materials, it includes targeted initiatives on beverage containers and glass market development.
These are the reasons behind KAB's endorsement:
1. Option 2(b) stipulates additional investment of $20m per year over 5 years, with further funding as necessary to achieve targets;
2. It will increase total beverage container recycling to 70% over 5 years and 80% over 10 years, and reduce packaging litter volumes by 10% over 5 years and 20% over 20 years;
3. It involves focused investments on largest improvement opportunities,namely increasing away from home beverage recycling and reducing all packaging litter;
4. Funding is to be split between a major expansion of public place recycling infrastructure (bins,signage), glass recycling infrastructure supporting education / public engagement ($15 m per annum) and targeted anti-litter strategies focused on hot spots, education and enforcement ($5 m per annum);
5. COAG’s cost/benefit analysis found Option 2(b) would have a net cost of $51 m compared to the net cost of CDS of $1,414 -$1,761m.
6. It would generate 4.264m tonnes of recycling compared to the 4.313m tonnes generated by CDS, and deliver similar litter benefits to a CDS, at 27 times less cost.
The full PwC and WCS report is available here.
