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

would be if the deposit was set very low, or if the scheme was poorly designed.
Neither assumption would be a fair one to make in the nature of such a comparison.
Ultimately, the review of evidence in the area of ‘costs’ highlights a degree of
polarisation in the ‘debate’ concerning whether beverage packaging should be
collected through deposit refunds or through separate collection systems.
Commentators appear to have taken a position on one side or the other, and have
then sought to select evidence which they believe supports their argument. The
argument is not, however, conclusively won in favour of one side or the other, and
indeed, it is surprising that only one study has really sought to examine which system
might be the best, and under what conditions. This is the study by BDA Group.
The study considered the influence of the deposit refund scheme on the costs of
operating recycling services. The study, undertaken in Australia, suggested that
deposit schemes were much the most expensive option for recovering containers (see
Table 16-7 and Figure 16-7. 369
Table 16-7: Net Economic Cost of Options (excludes environmental costs and
benefits)
Option Option
Economic Economic cost cost ($ m per annum)
Container deposit system $492.0
Extended kerbside/drop-off $30.4
Public place recovery $5.7
Events recovery $11.2
Hospitality/retail/institutions recovery $1.5
Workplace recovery $5.8
Residual waste processing systems $72.0
Advance disposal fee $42.4
Voluntary glass levy $8.6
Source: BDA Group (2009) Beverage Container Investigation, Report for the EPHC
beverage Container Working Group, March 2009.
369 BDA Group (2009) Beverage Container Investigation, Report for the EPHC beverage Container
Working Group, March 2009.
332
29/09/09