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

Of particular interest are some of the comments relating the costs to those of the
DSD system. Even here, however, some caution is required since fees do not always
replicate the actual ‘costs’ of the system. Furthermore, the effect of deposits on
consumer behaviour is not necessarily based upon an assumption regarding the price
inclusive of deposits. How consumers take into account the deposit in their
consumption decisions is likely to be a function of the ease with which they can
obtain their refund, and possibly, their income status. To the extent that obtaining
refunds is simple and straightforward, the deposit itself might be discounted by
consumers.
One study sought to understand the effects of introducing a deposit scheme against
the backdrop of an existing kerbside scheme. 368 This study is also referred to by
EUROPEN, who state:
331
Indeed, deposit systems for non-refillable beverage containers risk
undermining the economics of collecting other forms of packaging through
integral multi-material collection systems for packaging waste (BIO
Intelligence Service 2005). Without the critical mass offered by beverage
containers, the economics of integral and multi-material collection systems for
packaging waste are much less favourable. In Germany, about 20% of DSD’s
fee income came from packaging which is now part of a deposit system
instead.
Imposing a deposit system adds to costs without improving recycling rates.
Multi-material selective collection systems and mandatory deposits both
usually collect about 70% of the available material, but industry studies
indicate that whereas multi-material collection costs between EUR 320 and
EUR 770 per tonne, a combination of multi-material collection and deposits
costs between EUR 790 and EUR 1200 per tonne.
It is worth stating that the study is not entirely transparent regarding methodology.
However, the costs do not appear to be based upon any detailed logistics modelling,
so the costs per tonne collected from the kerbside scheme do not obviously change
when the mix of materials collected changes. The effect of this in the schemes
analysed would be to change the collection costs significantly as the bulk of materials
collected become paper and card once the deposit scheme is introduced in parallel
(as is suggested it will be). In addition, the sorting costs would change. The study does
not consider the possible effects, in terms of cost, of a change in littering. This would
be expected to affect costs of clean up of littering and the costs of disposal.
Finally, it should be stated that the study assumes that the introduction of a deposit
scheme lowers the overall recycling rate. There appears to be relatively little evidence
to support this, but the study argued this point with reference to US systems. Indeed,
the only reason to believe that this would happen – on the basis of the literature -
368 BIO Intelligence Service (2005) Environmental- and Cost-efficiency of Household Packaging waste
Collection Systems: Impact of a Deposit System on an Existing Multi-material Kerbside Selective
Collection System, Report for APEAL, March 2005.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes