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

This is not to deny the possibility of high recycling rates of packaging being achieved
without deposit refund schemes. Other EU countries have achieved impressive
recycling performance without deposit-refund systems, such as Belgium.
Notwithstanding very high overall rates of recycling for packaging, however, based on
its Fost Plus managed packaging collection system, Belgium managed to recycle 67%
of plastic bottles in 2007 (comprising both PET and HDPE) and 97.5% of metal
packaging (steel and aluminium cans). 349 One might still argue, even in this case, that
there might be room for improvement, through use of a deposit scheme, where
plastic bottles are concerned.
In the UK, Alupro, the aluminium industry’s trade body, says 98% of English
households have kerbside collections of aluminium cans, but capture rates can be
anywhere between 30% and 70%. 350 The ‘cans-only’ recycling rate is estimated to be
52% in 2008. 351 Therefore, even with a ‘free to the consumer’ system (in terms of
marginal cost), and a very widespread coverage, the capture rate is still much less
than is seen in the deposit-refund scheme countries. This may be partly a reflection of
the fact that 35% of aluminium cans are consumed away from home, in the
workplace, and at sports, leisure and travel locations, according to Alupro. However,
such a waste stream is one for which deposit refund schemes may be well suited to
dealing with, not least since such containers are less likely to arise as litter where
deposits are in place.
16.6.3 Effects on Littering
There is evidence to suggest that deposit refund policies can reduce litter and even
reduce the number of lacerations caused by glass in the environment. 352 Several oneway
deposit systems were implemented with the clear objective of reducing littering
(e.g. Sweden, British Columbia, California, Michigan and others). Hawaii is a more
recent example of this trend. The potential for deposit systems to be effective in
reducing littering has an intuitively plausible rationale - if the deposit is significant,
then if the consumer does decide to litter, the possibility exists that someone else will
pick up the container to redeem the deposit.
The Container Recycling Institute suggested significant reductions in littering following
introduction of deposits in some US states (see Figure 16-6). The effects on used
beverage containers (UBCs) and on total litter are shown as being between 70-80%
and 30-40%, respectively. It must be said, however, that all studies of this nature
suffer in terms of the lack of clarity about the metric used to measure the contribution
349 Fost Plus (2007) Annual Report, http://www.fostplus.be/files/EN/8/GB_AR.pdf
350 Ends Report (2009) Defra Report Rejects the case for Bottle Deposits, January 2009
http://www.endsreport.com/index.cfm?action=report.article&articleID=20119&q=deposit%20refund&
boolean_mode=all
351 Alupro website, http://www.alupro.org.uk/facts%20and%20figures.htm, accessed May 2009.
352 M. Douglas Baker, MD, Sally E. Moore, and Paul H. Wise, MD, PhD, MPH, "The Impact of 'Bottle Bill'
Legislation on the Incidence of Lacerations in Childhood", American Journal of Public Health, October
1986.
321
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes