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

The sectors that profited from the Regulation consist both of types of beverages
subject to, and those not subject to, the deposit fee. The increasing sector consists,
for example of still soft drinks, not subject to the deposit, but also of water, which is
included in the deposit refund system. It is argued that this outcome could be
explained partly by a shift in the behaviour of consumers from one kind of beverage to
another one in order to avoid the payment of the deposit, for example from
carbonated soft drinks bearing a deposit to non-carbonated soft drinks and juices
which are not deposit-bearing. Beer and classic carbonated soft drinks on the other
hand were sold less. Consumer Organisations claim that the drink producers avoid
the one-way-deposit by declaring the used carbonic acid as a technical essential
additive instead of an ingredient. Or they use sugar substitute instead of sugar. 384
17.9 Complementary Policies
Complementary Policies are the PAYT and the Packaging Ordinance introducing the
Dual Systems (e.g. the DSD).
17.10 Effect of the Policy on Pricing of Resources / Services
The system clearly has costs which need to be borne by the affected actors. These
actors might, to a degree, offset fees paid to the conventional packaging recovery
systems.
17.11 Lessons Learned
The political and the public responses to the policy have been quite different.
The beverage industry and the retail industry (especially the discounter markets Aldi,
Lidl and Plus) resisted the planned introduction of the deposit on cans. But there was
acceptance from the environmental federations and the reusable packaging industry.
Also the German States (Länder) were divided into supporters and opponents, so that
an extensive political debate was held between the federal government and the
Upper House of the parliament (the representation of the Länder in the legislative
procedure).
The supporters of the deposits referred to the fact that during the utilization of oneway
packages, there is a greater environmental impact. More resources continue to
be used if one-way packaging is used instead of reusable packaging. The opponents
of the deposit take the view that the recovery of one-way beverage packing is usually
possible; very high recycling rates can be reached and thus can be seen as equivalent
to re-usable packaging.
The subject of the “Dosenpfand” was of great significance for the German public. The
Federal Ministry of the Environment commissioned a survey in June and October of
2003, questioning 2,000 citizens in order to understand their position on the
mandatory deposit system. 75 % of the respondents stated that they are in favour of
the deposit duty. 48 % of the interviewees stated that they have had mostly good
384 EUWID from 05.09.2006, p.8.
347
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes