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

This may reflect the ease with which consumers can make use of the DSD system as
an alternative route – free, to themselves, at the point of disposal – for ensuring an
environmentally sound management of beverage containers, namely, recycling.
The above example does not necessarily imply that a scheme could not be designed
where refillables were not encouraged. For example, if households were incentivised
to reduce the use of recycling services through applying small charges on recycling
services, this might do more to improve the incentive to use refillables rather than
one-trip packaging. More likely, the combined effect of a primary material tax and a
deposit – as happens in Denmark – might reinforce the case for refillables. Finally, if
deposit schemes are successful in achieving high captures of material, it seems
reasonable to ask why it should be necessary to retain a second collection route for
the materials targeted by the deposit refund scheme. This important point is taken up
below in respect of costs.
Deposit-refund schemes have been used to encourage the refillable container
market, particularly for beer bottles, in Canada and some states of the USA. As
suggested above, where distances to transport the bottles are relatively short this
probably has a positive environmental benefit. Refillable PET bottles are increasingly
an alternative to the heavier, traditional refillable glass, particularly for the large
volume containers.
16.6.2 Increasing Recycling
To the extent that re-use might not be the objective of a deposit-refund scheme, it
becomes of interest to know whether deposit refund schemes can increase recycling.
This is not the same question as that of whether deposit refund schemes achieve
higher return rates than any alternative policies. This question is discussed, and it is
touched upon below, since this is often the question addressed by those discussing
deposit refunds. It would not, in and of itself, be evidence of the superiority of one
instrument relative to another. If the improvement in performance was obtained at a
cost that does not justify the benefit, then one might reasonably argue that an
instrument with enhanced performance is one where benefits are not justified by
costs.
16.6.2.1 Effects of Deposit Schemes on Recycling Rates
Ideally, one has some indication of ‘before’ and ‘after’ performance, controlling for
other variables. To some extent, this is made difficult by the absence of data of a
usable form. Surprisingly few studies actually take this approach.
Some data allows for comparison of performance in areas with and without deposits,
In the US, in 1999, the recycling performance of states with and without deposits in
place is shown in Figure 16-2. The recycling rates, and the number of containers
recovered per capita, were far higher in the deposit states.
316
29/09/09