European packaging organisation warns of the costs of deposit systems

APEAL has produced a briefing paper, “Recycling of Packaging and Barriers to Trade” as it fears that the opening of the Danish market to imported canned drinks could be short-lived if a deposit system is introduced. APEAL said that a deposit system could lead to a “de facto” ban on a number of packaging types which would limit the competition amongst packaging concepts and materials.

And APEAL said that a deposit system would contravene Article 7 of the European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste which states: “Collection systems for recycling shall be designed so as to avoid barriers to trade or distortions of competition in conformity with the Treaty.”

Expensive

The Association also points out how the more successful a deposit scheme, the more expensive they become. Under a deposit scheme, the consumer pays a deposit when he buys a drink packed in a one-way container which is claimed back when he takes the empty drinks container back to the retailer. But as deposit schemes are funded by unclaimed deposits, the more successful the scheme, the greater the costs and the scheme becomes more expensive because there are fewer unclaimed deposits to fund it with.

And APEAL says that when looking at the advantages of deposit systems it should be remembered that although they can have high recycling rates they only cover beverage packaging. “Recycling schemes will collect more packaging if they cover all sectors, not just beverage. Where there are beverage only recycling schemes, they need to be suitable for both steel and aluminium.”

The European Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste makes it clear that recycling systems should cover all packaging waste and states that “collection systems for recycling shall form part of a policy covering all packaging and packaging waste”. A recent European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) report also concluded that deposit systems for non-refillable beverage containers are not an effective recovery route because they single out drinks packaging from similar packaging.

Litter

APEAL also said that while deposits on beverage containers are supposed to be an effective way of solving society's litter problem, a German study shows that only 6% of litter was beverage packaging.

The Association commented that a deposit system collects less material but costs much more than multi-material collection. And added that while a solution may appear to be having a deposit system and a multi-material collection running side-by-side, this produces “exorbitant” costs. “A deposit system which runs in parallel with a multi-material collection system does not give optimum results, costs double without necessarily increasing recycling, especially when recycling rates are already high.”

APEAL concluded that deposit schemes are inefficient and distort the competition between types of packaging and packaging materials. “Deposit schemes for one-wway beverage containers are a barrier to environmental achievement, economic recycling, and to free trade, and it will continue to present objective information which demonstrates this. Recycling progress demands broad co-operation as in multi-material schemes rather than narrowly focused divisive systems such as deposit systems.”