New WRAP research exaggerates food waste value

I see via Edie that WRAP has published some new research examining the lost 'value' of food and packaging waste in UK supply chains (i.e. from the business sector as opposed to households). This comes to the staggering conclusion that around £7 billion is being lost to UK plc which, if addressed, could provide a significant injection to the economy through increased investment/exports/something else.

The first issue I have with the estimate is that they use average costs for estimating the 'value' of the lost food and packaging. It would be fairer and more accurate to use marginal cost data for ingredients and production costs, although I appreciate it would have been more difficult to get hold of this information.

Similarly they have included lost profit and capital expenditure in their estimates (12% of the total). This is a bit cheeky as capital spend is a fixed cost (and shouldn't be included in marginal cost estimates, as above) while absent profit is by definition not a cost (profit = revenues - costs).

So straight away we can see that their cost estimates are higher than they should be.

But the biggest issue I have with the associated headlines and rhetoric around lost opportunities for investment/the economy is that WRAP assumes that all of this 'value' can be captured at zero cost. This is utterly preposterous. The behaviour of the relevant economic agents tells us that this is not the case. Otherwise they would be doing it.

For WRAP to assume that all this waste is 'avoidable' and therefore able to be captured at zero cost is nonsense.

ACP advises local authorities on procurement

Via @APSRG I see that the Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP) has published its latest annual report.

While most of this is fairly technical stuff on how to link collections with supply chains and maximise recovery of packaging (particularly of plastics), one of the key recommendations (recommendation 2) advises local authorities to be given a statutory role as a supplier of materials to markets and also for them to participate in the contract framework for collection services developed by iESE.

I can't help thinking that by making this recommendation, the ACP is stepping outside of its remit.

On the first point, there is already a financial/business imperative for recycling to be completed in the most efficient manner so as to maximise revenues from recyclate sales and minimise landfill costs of rejected material.

On the second point, there has been a certain deal of controversy relating to the proposed iESE framework (see e.g. here or here), with some private contractors arguing that the framework will not deliver the promised cost savings, but will instead constrain innovation and end up being more expensive for participating authorities.

I personally can't see that the ACP has any role in advising local authorities on the most appropriate procurement methods for their collection services.

PwC revisits sustainable packaging

PwC recently published a report looking at 'sustainable packaging': http://www.pwc.co.uk/forest-paper-packaging/publications/sustainable-packaging-myth-or-reality.jhtml.

I personally struggle to get too excited about packaging. It is obviously a high profile issue for consumers but the Packaging Regulations have made a huge difference to the managing of packaging in the UK. The UK generates around 11m tonnes of packaging waste (out of circa 80m tonnes of municipal, commercial and industrial waste), of which around 2/3 is recycled. New targets will push these recycling rates even higher.

One surprise in the report for me is that they don't identify regulation as a principal driver of improved packaging 'sustainability'. Lightweighting to reduce tonnages to landfill and also improved recyclability of packaging are both driven by waste legislation and this, for me, seems a bit of an omission.