However, retailers have hit out at the research, claiming that the “old-style schemes” would actually undermine existing recycling achievements by jeopardising the economics of local kerbside collections.
In the report, entitled ‘Have we got the bottle’ and published by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), consultancy Eunomia analyses the environmental and financial implications of introducing a UK deposit refund scheme for drinks containers – glass bottles, PET bottles and cans.
It concludes that, while such a scheme would cost £84 million to set up and £212 million a year for drink manufacturers to operate, it would save councils £160 million a year in avoided waste management costs while also increasing recycling rates and reducing litter.
The report was flagged up to Mr Cameron in the House of Commons yesterday by Liberal Democrat MP Martin Horwood.
Mr Cameron said the research was “very interesting” and that he was aware of the success of such schemes in other countries and had discussed the issue with CPRE president Bill Bryson. Mr Bryson had previously urged the Conservative party to do more to tackle litter at the Conservative Party conference in 2008.
Mr Cameron said: “I will certainly ask his right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary [Chris Huhne] to look at this issue and see if we can take it forward.”
Research
The ‘Have we got the bottle?’ research was commissioned after deposit refund schemes were one of the key recommendations of a 2009 CPRE/Policy Exchange report entitled Litterbugs which investigated ways to reduce litter. It is also part of the CPRE’s ongoing Stop the Drop campaign.
The scheme proposed in the research works by including a deposit on the cost of drinks containers of 15p for containers smaller than 500ml and 30p on those larger. This deposit would then be refunded to consumers when they return the container to a retailer or other designated collection point.
This, the report found, would increase recycling rates, reduce costs associated with the PRN system and save councils around £160 million in avoided waste management costs at a time of spending cuts – equivalent to £7 per household per year.
Researchers found that setting up a scheme would take an initial £84 million investment over one or two years. The running costs of the scheme – approximately £700 million per year – would then be met by unclaimed deposits and by the drinks industry, it said.
Based at 90% return rates, which have been achieved in some EU deposit schemes, there would be £491 million in unclaimed deposits to support the running costs, with the remaining £212 million to be met by drinks manufacturers. This, the report said, could be passed onto consumers through a 0.7p rise in the unit retail price.
Overall, the research claimed that a sensibly implemented DRS would deliver environmental benefits “well in excess” of the costs of implementation. The cost to producers would also be roughly equivalent to the savings for councils and in the PRN system.
Rational
Bill Bryson, CPRE President, said: “These findings throw rational and informed light on an issue that is nonsensically contentious in the UK. What sensible nation would not want to capture and recycle its precious and finite resources?
“CPRE has published this research to reignite the debate, so that an effective mechanism which delivers environmental and social benefits in many other countries can be given its proper consideration in the UK.”
BRC
Reacting to the research, however, retailers claimed that “rosy-eyed nostalgia” for the days when people received a penny back for their bottle top missed the point.
Bob Gordon, head of environment at the British Retail Consortium, said: “Bringing back deposits would actually undermine recycling. With plastic bottles raising about £300 per tonne and aluminium cans about £900 a tonne, diverting them from existing recycling routes would threaten the viability of those schemes.
“Setting up a whole new infrastructure would be an expensive waste because bottles and cans are not the issue. The next big target for raising recycling rates is rigid plastics – tubs, pots and trays.”
Mr Gordon stressed that retailers already provided recycling facilities for a range of materials, adding: “A deposit scheme would impost pointless administrative costs on retailers while storing dirty returned containers would require space and create a hygiene hazard, especially for food retailers.”
A response also came from INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment – whose members operate throughout the packaging supply chain.
It agreed that deposit return schemes would undermine existing recycling collection systems and claimed that deposit return schemes would not prevent people littering.
The organisation said: “Drinks containers make up just 0.4% of the number of littered items, according to Keep Britain Tidy’s litter survey in 2008. They are of course, conspicuous buteven if that meant they visually account for as much as 25% of litter, as claimed in the report, that still leaves 75% untouched.
“Annual costs of £200 million for setting up and administering a deposit scheme, which is probably a serious under-estimate, does not seem insignificant when you consider that it will affect just a small amount of litter.”
The organisation added that drinks containers, especially aluminium, were an income-generating part of council’s recycling collections, and vital to fund the other low or no-value items.
Register for free to comment