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

However, the study noted that the relatively high administrative costs of a real world
deposit refund system could outweigh these cost savings. 360
Evidence on the administrative costs of bottle bills is sparse, with clear comparisons
between schemes hindered by differing scheme structures and study methodologies.
Traditional bottle bills, such as in Massachusetts, that require retailers to pay refunds
to consumers, sort containers by brand name, and store containers until bottlers
collect them are likely to be the most expensive to administer. Ackerman et al. found
that this deposit/refund system costs 2.3 cents per container, which corresponds to
approximately $320/tonne for a typical steel can. 361 Other designs for
deposit/refunds may result in lower average admin costs, such as California’s bottle
bill which has administrative costs of only 0.2 cents per container, or $28/ton for
steel cans.
Industry suggests a net cost of system operation per container sold of €0.004 in
Alberta, €0.005 in British Columbia, €0.01 in Finland, €0.011 in Sweden, and €0.014
in Saskatchewan. 362 The same source compares such costs against Green Dot
producer responsibility schemes, indicating that Fost Plus (Belgium) claims a cost of
€0.002 for a can, and €0.0135 for a PET bottle. In Germany, the costs of DSD are
quoted as €0.009 for a steel can, €0.011 for an aluminium can, €0.021 for a glass
bottle, and €0.05 for a PET bottle. However, these figures should be interpreted with
caution as it is not at all clear that similar cost streams are being detailed in every
case.
It is also incomplete to talk simply about scheme costs when the different schemes
are bringing about different levels of recycling. Thus, varying levels of benefit are
being realised from these different schemes, in terms of both litter reduction and
savings in wider environmental and social costs. A full cost-benefit analysis would
take into account these aspects, comparing them to a baseline or counterfactual
case.
An ex-ante cost-benefit analysis has recently been undertaken in New Zealand,
suggesting that the imposition of a deposit/refund scheme would deliver a net cost to
society. 363 This was against a baseline of an existing kerbside recycling scheme. In
effect the analysis was investigating the marginal costs and benefits of such a
scheme, taking into account the impact that diversion of materials would have upon
the cost-effectiveness of existing municipal recycling. An analysis with a baseline of
no recycling could be expected to deliver a more positive result, but again this would
360 K. Palmer, H. Sigman and M. Walls (1997) The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid Waste, Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 33, 128-50.
361 Frank Ackerman, Dmitri Cavander, John Stutz, and Brian Zuckerman (1995) Preliminary Analysis:
The Costs and Benefits of Bottle Bills, Draft report to U.S. EPA/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Boston, Mass.: Tellus Institute.
362 Communication with TOMRA.
363 Covec Report (2008) Potential Impacts of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill: Update Report,
Report for Packaging Council of New Zealand, May 2008, http://www.pca.org.au/uploads/00548.pdf
328
29/09/09