International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

NT$13.01 per kg (US$0.39 at January 1998 rates) for single material containers,
plus a refund amount of NT$0.70 (US$0.02 at January 1998 rates) per bottle.
Recycling rates started from a low base but were 41% in 1991. By 1992, the PET
recycling rate had jumped to 80%. 328 The scheme then ran into problems with
manufacturers’ not registering with the scheme, under-reporting production, and not
paying fees so that the fund ran into a deficit and had to reduce the refund from
around US$0.06 to around US$0.02. 329 However, recycling rates continue to be high,
reaching 100% and remaining there (which does however, suggest that there
continues to be some under-reporting of production). In 2007, over 97,000 tonnes
were recycled.
16.3.5 Other Countries
Many other countries in Europe, as well as countries in Asia and the Americas use the
deposit refund system for beverage containers.
Eleven US states have a legal deposit on bottles and cans for beer and soft drinks. Six
states also have deposits on mineral water containers. Deposits are made mandatory
through the State’s ‘bottle bills’ and range from 2.5¢ to 15¢ per container. According
to the US Container Recycling Institute, beverage container recycling rates are far
higher (72% on average by weight) in states with bottle bills than those without (28%
recycling rate). 330 In most states, retailers are required to take back containers that
are in their product line, even if the product was not purchased through their store. In
some states (e.g. Maine and California) retailers are exempt where they are near to
redemption (civic amenity) sites.
Deposit refund arrangements for containers are also in place in most Canadian
provinces and are also common in Europe. According to a UK report for Friends of the
Earth, glass and PET bottle reuse rates as high as 90% are found in Denmark,
Sweden, Germany and Finland. 331 Such schemes raise awareness and help to change
consumer attitudes and behaviour. They have also been shown (in the USA) to have a
low direct cost per tonne of material recovered although the administrative costs can
be high if the scheme is not well designed and implemented. In the USA the states
with bottle bills also have approximately three times the national average market
share for refillable beverage containers, i.e. around 15% rather than around 5%. 332
328 D. O’Connor (1996), Applying Economic Instruments In Developing Countries: From Theory To
Implementation, Report for the OECD Development Centre, May 1996 web.idrc.ca/uploads/user-
S/10536145810ACF2AE.pdf
329 Asia-Pacific Environmental Innovation Strategies (2004) Deposit-Refund Systems for PET bottles in
Taiwan, Report for Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration, December 2004,
www.iges.or.jp/APEIS/RISPO/inventory/db/pdf/0133.pdf
330 http://www.bottlebill.org
331 Eunomia (2002), Maximising Recycling Rates, Tackling Residuals, Report for Friends of the Earth,
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/maximising_recycling_rates_report.pdf
332 Robert C. Anderson (2000) The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting
the Environment, Report for US EPA, Nov 2004.
309
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes