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

All the provinces of Canada operate some deposit-refund systems for drinks
containers. The beer industry organises collection and refilling of its refillable bottles
and has a return rate of 90-99%. For other drinks containers, industry associations
fund the kerbside recycling programs run by municipalities. They use a number of
different mechanisms to raise fees:
310
� Container recycling fee. This reflects the net cost of recycling, and therefore
depends on the material and the recovery rate. These range from zero to
$0.08;
� Environmental handling charge. $0.03 to $0.07 per unit, depending on size
and material. The provincial government collect the funds to operate the
program and retain any surplus;
� Beverage container levy. $0.02 per unit, used to finance 80% of kerbside
collection;
� Half-back. Represents half of the deposit paid on a non-refillable container.
In systems other than the half-back (in which only half the deposit is refunded to the
consumer on return), the whole deposit – between $0.05 and $0.40 – is refunded on
return of the container.
There is also some application of the concept in relation to other waste streams.
Austria has deposit-refund schemes for light bulbs/tubes, batteries and refrigeration
equipment. The US State of Rhode Island requires a US$5 deposit on all replacement
vehicle tyres. The deposit is refunded if the customer returns the old tyres to the point
of sale within 14 days of purchasing new tyres. It is also used for pesticide containers
in some US states.
The OECD noted in 2001 that among middle-income countries, South Korea has one
of the most extensive deposit systems in terms of items covered. Under a 1991
amendment to its Solid Waste Management Act, South Korea introduced a
comprehensive deposit program in 1992. The products affected by the system
include packaging, batteries, tyres, oil, televisions, air conditioners and washing
machines. Producers and importers of the listed products pay the deposits into a
“Special Account for Environmental Improvement” and receive refunds as they collect
and treat the resulting post-consumer waste. The products covered and the size of
the deposit were modified in 1993 and again in 1996. The largest deposit applied to
large tyres and amounted to about $0.40. The deposit on paper, metal, glass and
plastic packaging was a fraction of a US cent per container. 333
New Zealand is currently examining the case for container deposit legislation. This is
specifically regarded as a combination of product tax (the deposit) and recycling
subsidy (the refund). The system being considered is likely to be based upon the
South Australian model, in which the consumer takes the empty container to a small
local collector and receives the refund, and the collectors give the product to 3 super-
333 Robert C. Anderson (2004) The United States Experience with Economic Incentives for Protecting
the Environment, Report for US EPA, Nov 2004.
29/09/09