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

Figure 16-5: Return Percentages of One Way & Refillable Beverages
Source: Christian Fischer (2008) Producer Responsibility Schemes Versus Deposits
and Taxes- Danish Experiences, PRO Europe Congress, 15 May 2008
It is common to hear it suggested that it is not the case that recycling rates are higher
under deposit schemes. However, those who suggest this usually do so on the basis
of reviewing recycling rates for all packaging. For example, EUROPEN, argues: 346
319
There are no compensating benefits with regard to an overall improvement in
recycling performance. The Perchards report showed that overall recycling
rates in Member States with deposit systems are not higher than those of
comparable EU countries where there are no special arrangements for
beverage containers.
The problem with this appears to be that the Perchards report looked at rates for all
packaging in seeking to make this point. Deposits do not apply to all packaging (a
point that is frequently made to downplay the potential impact of deposits on total
recycling rates, often by the same organisations who seek to downplay the potential
effectiveness of deposit refunds by using statistics which cover all packaging).
Perchards themselves state: 347
It is certainly true that deposit systems for non-refillable beverage containers
can achieve higher recycling rates for the beverage containers affected than
when these containers are handled through general recycling systems.
However European experience shows that deposit systems do do not not achieve achieve achieve a
a
346 EUROPEN (2007) Economic Instruments in Packaging and Packaging Waste Policy, Brussels:
EUROPEN.
347 G. Bevington (2008) A Deposit and Refund Scheme in Ireland, Report commissioned by Repak Ltd.,
September 2008.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes