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

315
The existing studies show that the environmental comparison of refillables
versus one-way containers is not a simple one and that a number of factors
need to be considered. Three key factors, cited in a number of the studies, are
transport transport distance, capture rate for for reuse and collection collection rate for for for recycling.
recycling.
Another factor they do not mention is the number of uses per container, which is
partly a function of capture rate, but also a function of the number of uses prior to
breakage. This is usually a key factor in such studies (i.e. how many ‘lives’ does a
container have before it enters the ‘discard’ phase).
The suggestion is that the studies are not conclusive. They also suggest, however,
that some variables – such as transport – should be entitled to vary freely. Issues
such as transport distance are, however, amenable to being influenced by policy.
LCAs appear to treat this as an exogenous variable, yet clearly, it is not, and one
might legitimately ask whether restriction of transport movements might not be a
legitimate area for policy intervention.
This important point was raised in the study by Ecolas-PIRA, where it was suggested
that: ‘This inevitably leads to debates on the proper balance’ between Internal Market
and environmental objectives, to which there is no simple answer.’ 341
The actual outcomes of some deposit schemes are not always as intended. To the
extent that the German scheme was designed to increase the market share of
refillables, it seems to have failed, partly as a consequence of high deposit rates (see
Section 17.0). Bevington notes: 342
The mandatory 25 cent deposit on non-refillables is much higher than the
commercially-determined deposits on refillables: 8 cents (glass) and 15 cents
(PET). This was intended to encourage consumers to buy refillables, in order to
protect the refill market. A perverse result of this has been that consumers
who do not intend to return their empties buy refillables so they lose a smaller
deposit. Thus the return rate for refillables has fallen.
The deposit has failed to protect refillables, and their market share has fallen
in all categories except beer since 2003, as shown in the chart below. They
are below the levels in 2001, just before the deposit took effect. Most of the
non-refillables are PET, as consumption of cans has not recovered. The fact
that beer is not commonly sold in PET, together with the conservative nature
of the German beer market, explains why refill levels for beer have been
maintained. Government data for 2006 are not yet available, but industry data
suggests that refill levels declined further in 2006 for all drinks categories
including beer.
341 Ecolas – Pira (2005) Study on the Implementation of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and
Packaging Waste and Options to Strengthen Prevention and Re-use of Packaging, Final Report to the
European Commission, Report 03/07884.
342 G. Bevington (2008) A Deposit and Refund Scheme in Ireland, Report commissioned by Repak Ltd.,
September 2008.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes