Review of Packaging Deposits Systems For The UK PDF

Review of Packaging
Deposits System for the UK

Final Report
December 2008
www.erm.com
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Defra
Review of Packaging Deposits

System for the UK
December 2008
Reference 0088452
Prepared by: Simon Gandy, Jonna Fry and

Jackie Downes
For and on behalf of

Environmental Resources Management
Approved by: Simon Aumonier
Signed:
Position: Partner
Date: 11th December 2008
This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources

Management the trading name of Environmental Resources
Management Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence
within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our
General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the
resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.
We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of

any matters outside the scope of the above.
This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility

of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part
thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their
own risk.
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 1

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT 1
1.3 ERM’S APPROACH 2
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT 3
2 FEATURES OF BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION 4
2.2 TYPICAL SCOPE OF A BEVERAGE DEPOSIT SYSTEM 5
2.3 PARTIES INVOLVED IN DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 6
2.4 MANDATORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 8
2.5 LABELLING CONTAINERS 8
2.6 TYPICAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER COLLECTION MECHANISMS 9
2.7 SORTING, BULKING AND RECYCLING/RECOVERING OF CONTAINERS 10
2.8 ASSURING SECURITY AND PREVENTING FRAUD 11
2.9 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 12
2.10 POTENTIAL CROSS BOUNDARY ISSUES AND SINGLE MARKET IMPLICATIONS 13
2.11 COSTS AND INCOME STREAMS 14
2.12 VALUE OF THE DEPOSIT 15
2.13 TYPICAL CONTAINER RETURN RATES IN DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 17
2.14 IMPACTS OF DEPOSIT SCHEMES 17
2.15 THE ROLE OF REVERSE VENDING MACHINES (RVMS) 18
2.16 THE ROLE OF THE CLEARING HOUSE 22
2.17 SUMMARY – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEPOSITS SYSTEMS 22
3 THE CURRENT UK SYSTEM 24
3.1 INTRODUCTION 24
3.2 TYPES OF BEVERAGE PACKAGING IN THE UK 24
3.3 THE UK BEVERAGE SECTOR 25
3.4 SINGLE USE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS IN WASTE 27
3.5 THE UK PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN 30
3.6 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND NATIONAL TARGETS 30
3.7 THE UK’S PACKAGING WASTE RECYCLING PERFORMANCE 36
3.8 VOLUNTARY SCHEMES IN THE UK 37
3.9 SCOTTISH PROPOSALS FOR A DEPOSIT SYSTEM 41
3.10 COSTS OF RUNNING CURRENT UK SYSTEM 42
3.11 SUMMARY – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CURRENT UK SYSTEM 42
4 HOW DEPOSIT SYSTEMS COULD WORK IN THE UK 45
4.1 SCOPE OF A POTENTIAL SYSTEM 45

4.2 HOW THE SYSTEM MIGHT WORK 49
4.3 IMPACT ON THE UK’S CURRENT PACKAGING WASTE SYSTEM 51
4.4 POSSIBLE ECONOMIC COSTS OF A DEPOSIT SYSTEM 55
4.5 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 55
4.6 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR INCREASING RECYCLING RATES 57
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63
5.1 ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS TO ACHIEVE INCREASED RECYCLING 65

5.2 SUMMARY 67
ANNEXES
ANNEX A REVIEW OF MEMBER STATE EXPERIENCE
A1 DENMARK
A2 GERMANY
A3 SWEDEN
A4 NETHERLANDS
ANNEX B LIST OF CONTRIBUTING STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Defra commissioned a report on deposit schemes in 2004, and its basic

findings suggested that a deposit system would be problematic. However,
there has recently been renewed interest in the possible use of deposit systems
and the use of reverse vending as a collection method for beverage containers.
In this report, again commissioned by Defra, Environmental Resources

Management Limited (ERM) looks at features of packaging deposit systems
and the role they might play in increasing recovery and recycling of single-use
drink containers (plastic, aluminium and glass) in the UK.
ERM’s method for this study involved extensive consultation with industry
stakeholders in the UK, as well as reviewing deposit systems in four other EU
Member States. Detailed tables reporting how those countries’ systems work
are provided in Annex A, and a list of all stakeholders in provided in Annex B.
How Beverage Deposit Systems Work

Chapter 2 provides a description of the typical features of beverage deposit
systems, based upon the findings from the review of circumstances in other
EU Member States. The basic principle of deposit systems on beverage
packaging is that supermarkets, kiosks, etc, on purchasing beverage products
from a bottler or importer, pay an additional fee on the packaging in the form
of a deposit. The fee is generally determined by the packaging material and
the container size, and is indicated via a label on the packaging.
On purchasing the beverage product in store, the consumer will pay the
additional fee to the retailer and the fee is then reimbursed when the
consumer returns the empty packaging. This encourages a high return rate
and allows beverage packaging to be collected and returned for reuse or
recycling.
The chapter goes on to consider the range of decisions governing the deposit
system that need to be made. These include deciding which materials and
packs are covered, how labelling will be handled, how security can be assured
and fraud prevented, how to deal with potential cross border issues, the value
of the deposits and fees, and the role of the clearing house. Some general
learnings from the other EU Member States are presented in Box 1.
The Current UK System

Chapter 3 describes the current UK system, in terms of the beverage packaging
market, and arrangements for collecting and recycling single-use beverage
containers. The UK Packaging Regulations place obligations on parties
throughout the packaging production chain, starting with the manufacturers
of the packaging materials, through to the pack/fillers and retailers. In
addition, importers are made responsible for the packaging they bring into the
country.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

I
Box 1 Some General Learnings from European Deposit Systems
• Implementation • Collection
All national systems reviewed are Split between retailers and RVMs.
mandatory rather than voluntary. Typically, split is initially 80:20, but
reverses to 20:80 over a number of years,
• Wide Ranging
as RVMs are rolled out.
The deposit schemes in other EU Member
States typically involve many parties along • Deposit Value
the packaging supply chain: Details vary, but the typical range of
- producers/importers deposit values is 10p-30p.
- retailers • Container Return Rates

- consumers The other EU Member States (that report
figures) are seeing return rates of >80%.
- logistics/waste management
companies • Labelling
- centralised body As the schemes are all mandatory, a
labelling system is used to indicate on
- monitoring/enforcement body
which containers a deposit is due.
• Products National barcodes reduce the chances of
None of the reviewed deposit schemes has cross-border issues.
milk in their scope.
Each obligated company must acquire evidence (in the form of packaging
recovery notes, PRNs) over the course of the year that their packaging
recycling and recovery obligations have been fulfilled. PRNs are traded on an
open market like shares, and are subject to the same rises and falls in value,
depending on supply and demand. The revenue from PRNs is meant to be
reinvested into the reprocessing industry, to fund the commissioning of
further equipment, so that increasing targets can be met. If PRN targets fail to
increase, many stakeholders believe their price will collapse.
The majority of packaging waste from households is collected by local

authorities as part of their regular collection rounds, either as source-
separated dry recyclables or mixed up with the residual waste. The council
arranges for the bulking of the recyclable materials, where possible, and
onward supply to reprocessing companies. The current UK system is
relatively efficient at collecting and recycling beverage packaging waste,
inasmuch as it is handled together with other similar packaging and non-
packaging (notably newspapers and magazines) recyclable waste.
There are two distinct challenges that persist for the UK recycling
infrastructure. The first is to increase the coverage (in terms of both
geography and materials accepted) of the source-separated kerbside
collections, so that all residents have the same opportunities to divert their
waste from landfill. The second is to find a way to encourage all those who
have the infrastructure to make full use of it.
The UK has seen significant growth in the collection and recycling of

packaging waste since the introduction of the Regulations in 1998. However,
performance on the overall recovery rate continues to lag behind other EU

II
countries, as shown in Figure 1, with the recycling rate alone significantly
short of the highest achievers in Europe.
Figure 1 Packaging Waste Recovery in EU15 (2005)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Recovery
Recycling
30%
20%
10%
0%
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Finland
Ireland
Sweden
Germany
Portugal
Spain
Belgium
Austria
France
Italy
Denmark
Greece
Some voluntary schemes already operate in the UK. Recycling Zones are
aimed at high-footfall locations ‘out of home’, with the intention of collecting
more ‘on the go’ recyclates. Other schemes have introduced reverse vending
machines that provide customers with various rewards for depositing target
containers. Feedback on these systems is generally positive, although costs
are very high.
How Deposits Would Work in the UK

Chapter 4 combines the gathered information to consider how a deposit system
could work in the UK. The first consideration is again the breadth of
packaging and products that would be covered by the scheme, as presented in
Figure 2, and many questions arise. The range of packaging types and
materials has grown substantially since deposit schemes were more
widespread throughout the UK, over 20 years ago. Any future deposit system
would need to take account of the range of packaging materials in the waste
stream and the growth in products, such as on-the-go food and drink.
Why should deposits only cover beverage containers (soft drinks, but not
fabric softeners), if the goal is increased recycling? ERM believes steel should
certainly be included, but why not cartons as well? Decisions would also have
to be made concerning finances, including:
• the level at which to set the deposits on each packaging category;
• the basis for levying fees on the producers, and the level of the fees;

III
• the level of penalties for non-compliance; and
• how non-refunded deposits should be used.
Once various other considerations have been determined, such as labelling,
collection routes and the operation of the clearing house, a public information
campaign would be needed to explain the why and how of the new scheme,
and to prepare all parties along the supply chain.
Figure 2 Venn Diagram of Scope of Deposit System
Packaging
Product Milk Cartons Materials
Fruit Steel
and Alcoholic
Products Aluminium
Vegetable Disposal
Juices Cups
Soft Drinks Glass
Plastic
Water
Deposit
System
Single
All Trip
Sizes
Reusable
Pack Format
Size
Alternatives to Packaging Deposits

Chapter 4 also presents seven alternatives to deposit schemes that might
achieve the same goals. Firstly, it is suggested that the UK could simply
continue with voluntary schemes and RVMs – business as usual. A simple
step beyond this would be to try to recover materials from litter bins, sending
their contents through dirty MRFs. This is relatively straightforward in
concept, but might have some operational issues.
The most popular alternative suggestion for boosting recycling is to invest

money in expanding coverage of kerbside collection scheme. The
infrastructure is already quite well developed, and the public are familiar with
what is required of them. Figure 3 shows that plastic bottle recycling has
grown in line with the growth in coverage of households served by kerbside
plastic collection.
Providing financial support for the expansion of council collection schemes

offers a relatively cost effective means of continuing the trend of improving

IV
rates. Furthermore, the investment would cover a much wider range of
materials – not only certain beverage containers, but other items of packaging,
and non-packaging materials as well.
Figure 3 Correlation Between Plastic Bottle Recycling Levels and Households Served
by Kerbside Plastic Collection (1995-2009)
200,000 16
175,000 14
Households with Kerbside Plastic Collection / Millions

150,000 12
Plastic Bottles Recycled / tonnes
125,000 10
Combined
Kerbside
100,000 8
Bring
Households
75,000 6
50,000 4
25,000 2
0 0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Sources: Plastic Bottles Recycled: Recoup

Households Served by Kerbside Plastic Collections: WRAP (1)
Possibly in combination with the above, a number of suggestions were made

on how the PRN system could be adapted and improved, all of which
involved setting more specific targets, splitting the current PRN targets
according to:
• point of arising (household or commercial and industrial);
• packaging class (primary, secondary or tertiary packaging);
• material sub-type (plastic polymer, glass colour, etc); or
• package type (bottle, tub, etc).
None of these suggestions is without difficulties, but all of them present

Government with an opportunity to take a policy decision on which categories
of packaging need improved recycling in the future.
On the subject of PRNs, it was also suggested by Recoup that PRN income
should not all go to the reprocessor, but be split between collection, sorting
(1) Figure 33 of Local Authorities Plastic Collection Survey 2008, WRAP, MDP008, May 2008. 2008 and 2009 are based on
local authority projections.

V
and reprocessing, since, for plastics in particular, it is not the reprocessing
capacity that is the bottle neck, but collection and sorting.
The most radical alternative raised by stakeholders involved changing the

metric by which the targets are set from weight, which is obvious and easy to
measure, to carbon, which is arguably a much better indicator of
environmental impact. The reasons behind this change are relatively clear,
but the general opinion is that the science is not yet well enough developed.
Conclusions
In Chapter 5, ERM provides our conclusions. Defra originally presented a
series of key questions that the study should address, and the results are as
follows:
Would a deposit system lead to increased collection and/or improve the quality of the
materials collected?
Yes. The general consensus is that a deposit system would increase the
total tonnages of materials collected, although a significant amount of the
deposited packaging would be cannibalised from existing collection
schemes. However, a deposit scheme may also capture some of the hard to
reach materials – particularly ‘on the go’ food and drink packaging. There
was less agreement about whether or not there would be a concurrent
improvement in the quality of materials collected.
What role might reverse-vending play in a deposit scheme or as an alternative? Could

reverse vending alone provide a similar or better outcome?
Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) would play an important role in any
deposit scheme, freeing retailers, to some extent, from the burdens of
redeeming deposits. RVM trials in the UK have proved popular with the
public, and RVMs in shopping areas could divert recyclates from waste
bins. Whether RVMs would reduce littering is disputed.
What would be the likely effect on local authority collections/existing collection

mechanisms?
There was widespread agreement that the introduction of deposits would
have a detrimental effect on existing collection mechanisms in general, and
council kerbside collections in particular. Deposits on only a proportion of
packaging materials may add to the householder confusion over the
varying scope of local authority services, which has been widely reported
by stakeholders, and this may be a disincentive to participation. The
deposit scheme would divert a significant amount of packaging waste
from the kerbside schemes, and that may have a knock-on effect on other
materials currently collected at kerbside.
What are the pre-conditions for success of a deposit scheme?

Box 2.2 provides details on some of the things that need to be in place
before a deposit scheme can be launched. In brief: the centralised body
would need to have been established; all the producers and importers
must have registered and labelled their products, and paid the associated
fees; the retailers must have some form of collection system in place;

VI
hauliers and reprocessors must be set to receive the returned packaging
through the new channels; and consumers must be informed about the
new system.
What are the likely costs (including administrative and operational costs)? Are there
likely to be less costly alternatives to increasing recycling?
Although this question was included in the brief, it was also recognised by
Defra that an economic study of deposits was outside the terms of
reference. To give one general ballpark assessment of costs, the German
deposit scheme acknowledged that compulsory deposits cost around three
times as much per container as household-based collection systems.
What information is there on industry evidence on deposit schemes?

To ERM’s knowledge, there are no deposit schemes in the UK currently
handling single-trip packaging, with the exception of voluntary schemes
run at events such as music festivals. Tesco reports that their voluntary
RVMs, awarding loyalty points for returned packaging, have been well
received by customers, but are very expensive.
What information - if any - is there on the effects of deposits schemes on littering?

ERM has found little hard evidence that deposit schemes reduce littering.
One exception is a recent nature clean-up lead by the Danish Society for
Nature Conservation, which collected 154 389 cans, of which only 7989
(5%) were deposit-bearing cans. The rest were foreign cans that were not
part of the Danish scheme.
Would certain drinks categories, producers or packaging systems be discriminated

against or favoured by a deposit scheme?
Possibly to some extent. General stakeholder opinion was that, unless the
deposit scheme is introduced uniformly over all packaging systems,
manufacturers might change their choice of packaging to get around the
rules. However, experience from other European countries is that this has
rarely occurred. Opinion was that consumer preferences had a
significantly higher influence on packaging material choice than whether
the material was part of a deposit scheme or not.
Would this have any effect on the market for containers which can be refilled (or the
likelihood of such a market taking off)?
ERM has found no evidence that introducing deposits for single-trip
containers might increase the market for refillable containers. On the
contrary, evidence from the other European countries shows that the use of
refillable beverage packaging is in decline, for other reasons.
Are the conclusions on benefits and disadvantages different for each material? Might
deposit schemes encourage packaging producers to substitute one material for
another?
ERM considers that the benefits and disadvantages of a deposit scheme are
the same for each material. However, as noted above, unless the scheme is
introduced uniformly across all materials, some market distortion is likely.

VII
ERM would make the following closing comments on the study.
• It is not disputed that a deposit scheme would increase recycling, but
alternative schemes could achieve the same or better results at a lower
cost.
• Deposits could be seen to impose an additional cost to householders who
are not easily able to participate.
• It is likely that the majority of materials collected through a deposit
scheme would be diverted from the existing household collection
schemes, rather than being new material that is not currently collected.
• Deposits would require the development of a new tranche of
infrastructure to collect and store the packaging at retailers, while
reducing the usage of the existing kerbside collection infrastructure.
• Deposits may make a contribution to reducing litter, but, for ‘on the go’
packaging, it is thought that the major impact would be to divert
packaging from waste bins to recycling bins.
• A deposit scheme would have to be carefully designed, in order not to fall
foul of legal requirements to be proportionate and non-discriminatory,
and in order not to encourage producers to change their choice of
packaging material.
If Defra decided against introducing a deposit scheme, there are alternatives

that might achieve the same goal of increasing recycling and recovery of
packaging waste. ERM makes two specific suggestions on this matter:
• Further funds could be invested in kerbside collection infrastructure.
Households are increasingly familiar with these schemes, and much of the
infrastructure required is already in place.
• Those funds could be provided, at least in part, by changes to the PRN
system. Of the suggestions listed, splitting targets according to primary,
secondary and tertiary packaging might be the least problematic.
Finally, voluntary schemes at large events have proved highly effective in

combating littering of the cups on which deposits had been placed, and could
be further encouraged.
ERM
December 2008

VIII
1 INTRODUCTION
Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

Defra to carry out a desk-based study on deposit schemes and reverse
vending machines for single-use beverage containers.
This report looks at the features of packaging deposit systems and the role
that they might play in increasing recovery and recycling of single-use drink
containers (plastic, aluminium and glass) in the UK.
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT
Defra commissioned a report on deposit schemes in 2004. Its basic findings

suggested that a deposit system would be problematic. However, there has
been renewed interest in the possible use of deposit systems and the use of
reverse vending as a collection method for beverage containers.
In particular, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) supports the

introduction of a deposit system as a means to reduce litter. CPRE has
recently launched a campaign with this aim in mind.
At the same time, it is thought that a deposit system on one-way drinks

packaging could improve the separate collection of the containers, making the
waste material more attractive to recyclers and reprocessors. Reprocessors
have voiced their concerns about the levels of material contamination in local
authority kerbside-collected recyclables and reverse vending machines could
help to address this problem.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT
With this background in mind, this project aims to consider how a deposit
system and reverse vending machines could work to increase the recycling
and recovery of single use beverage containers (plastic, aluminium and glass).
It also considers the impact such a system would have on litter arisings.
The original scope of the project did not include:

• an evaluation of the use of deposits for returnable/refillable containers;
• single use beverage containers manufactured from materials other than
plastic, aluminium and glass (eg cartons); or
• a detailed cost comparison of different options for increasing the
collection and recycling of single use beverage containers.
However, in carrying out the work, these issues have arisen, and been
addressed to a certain extent. They are commented upon where appropriate.

1
An overall aim of the project was to address the key questions shown in
Box 1.1 as posed by Defra’s project team.
Box 1.1 Key Questions to be Addressed in this Study
• Would a deposit system lead to increased collection and/or improve the quality of the
materials collected?
• What role might reverse-vending play in a deposit scheme or as an alternative? Could

reverse vending alone provide a similar or better outcome?
• What would be the likely effect on local authority collections/existing collection

mechanisms?
• What are the pre-conditions for success of a deposit scheme?
• What are the likely costs (including administrative and operational costs)? Are there likely to
be less costly alternatives to increasing recycling?
• What information is there on industry evidence on deposit schemes?
• What information - if any - is there on the effects of deposits schemes on littering?
• Would certain drinks categories, producers or packaging systems be discriminated against or

favoured by a deposit scheme?
• Would this have any effect on the market for containers which can be refilled (or the
likelihood of such a market taking off)?
• Are the conclusions on benefits and disadvantages different for each material? Might deposit
schemes encourage packaging producers to substitute one material for another?
1.3 ERM’S APPROACH
In evaluating packaging deposit schemes and their possible introduction in

the UK, ERM has consulted with a number of key stakeholders, including
representatives of the:
• packaging manufacturing sector, including the Packaging Federation,
Alupro, British Glass and Nampak;
• government organisations, including BERR, the Advisory Committee on
Packaging (ACP) and the Environment Agency;
• the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP);
• Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), including the Campaign for
the Protection for Rural England (CPRE) and Friends of the Earth (FoE);
• packaging recycling or environmental organisations, including Incpen,
Valpak, Recoup and Novelis;
• the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee (LARAC); and
• retail and beverage supply sector, including Tesco, M&S, the Association
of Convenience Stores (ACS), the British Soft Drinks Association (BSDA)
and the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA).

2
We have also reviewed the existing packaging deposit systems in Germany,
the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. A full list of stakeholders consulted
in provided in Annex B.
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
This report contains the following chapters:

Chapter 2 provides a description of typical features of deposit systems;
Chapter 3 provides a description of the features of the UK’s existing systems for
collecting and recycling single-use beverage containers;
Chapter 4 provides an assessment of how deposit systems could work in the UK;
Chapter 5 provides our conclusions in relation to the key questions in Box 1.1
This report also containers two annexes:

Annex A Country reports for Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Annex B List of Stakeholders Consulted.

3
2 FEATURES OF BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT SYSTEMS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section outlines the features of a deposit system, to allow comparison

with the UK’s existing system for collecting and recycling single use beverage
containers, reviewed in Chapter 3.
In order to understand the features of packaging deposit systems, ERM has

reviewed existing systems in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the
Netherlands. Additional information has been obtained through discussions
with key stakeholders.
The basic principle of deposit systems on beverage packaging is that

supermarkets, kiosks, etc, on purchasing beverage products from a bottler or
importer, pay an additional fee on the packaging in the form of a deposit. The
fee is generally determined by the packaging material and the container size,
and is indicated via a label on the packaging. On purchasing the beverage
product in store, the consumer will pay the additional fee to the retailer and
the fee is then reimbursed when the consumer returns the empty packaging.
This encourages a high return rate and allows beverage packaging to be
collected and returned for reuse or recycling.
In developing a deposit system, a number of issues have to be considered and

a range of decisions governing the system need to be made. The following
sections address these issues.
Section 2.2 Typical Scope of a Beverage Deposit System

Section 2.3 Parties Involved in Deposit Systems
Section 2.4 Mandatory versus Voluntary Deposit Systems
Section 2.5 Labelling Containers
Section 2.6 Typical Beverage Container Collection Mechanisms
Section 2.7 Sorting, Bulking and Recycling/Recovering of Containers
Section 2.8 Assuring Security and Preventing Fraud
Section 2.9 Potential Health and Safety Implications of Deposit Systems
Section 2.10 Potential Cross Boundary Issues and Single Market Implications
Section 2.11 Costs and Income Streams
Section 2.12 Value of the Deposit
Section 2.13 Typical Container Return Rates in Deposit Systems
Section 2.14 Impacts of Deposit Schemes
Section 2.15 The Role of Reverse Vending Machines
Section 2.16 The Role of the Clearing House
Section 2.17 Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages of Deposits Systems

4
2.2 TYPICAL SCOPE OF A BEVERAGE DEPOSIT SYSTEM
The first consideration in developing a deposit system for beverage containers

is to determine which containers will be included in the scope of the system.
Typically, deposit schemes for single use packaging have evolved from pre-
existing deposit schemes on refillable beverage packaging for beer and
carbonated soft drinks (aimed at encouraging the return of the packaging for
reuse). The initial focus for deposit schemes on non-refillable beverage
containers has therefore often been beer and carbonated soft drinks.
However, this has generally been expanded to include non-carbonated soft
drinks, still and sparkling mineral water, and some alcoholic drinks beyond
beer (eg alcopops), as well as additional beverage container materials.
Table 2.1 provides an overview of the principal scope of deposit systems which
have been evaluated in this project.
Table 2.1 Scope of Deposit Systems for Single-Use Beverage Containers
9included within the deposit system
Netherlands
8 excluded within the deposit system Denmark
Germany
Sweden
Product
Milk 8 8 8 8
Beer 9 9 9 9
Wine 8 8 9 8
Spirits 8 8 9 8
Carbonated Water 9 9 9 9
Non Carbonated Water 9 9 9 9
Carbonated Soft Drinks 9 9 9 9
Non-Carbonated Soft Drinks 9 9 9 9
Vegetable/Fruit Juices 8 8 8 8
Beverage Packaging Type

Plastic bottles 9 9 9 9
Aluminium cans 9 9 9 8
Steel cans 9 9 9 8
Cartons 8 8 8 8
Glass bottles 9 9 8 8
Notes:
The Danish system also includes other drinks containing between 0.5% and 10% alcohol. It
excludes fruit squash, cordials and cocoa. It also excludes beverage containers over 20 litres (eg
plastic bottles used in water dispensers).
The German system also includes mixed alcoholic drinks. It excludes drinks containing more
than 50% milk, wine, spirits, and dietetic drinks, although the latter will be included in the
deposit scheme as of April 2009. It also excludes packaging termed as ‘ecologically favourable’
such as pouches and stand-up bags. In addition, with effect from end 2008 until 2012,
bioplastics will also be excluded. These are not excluded due to a claim of being ‘ecologically
favourable’, but rather to encourage innovative packaging.
The Swedish system applies to all consumer beverages in plastic bottles and cans. The
regulations do not specify the content in the same details as other deposit schemes. The only
exemptions are beverages containing 50% or more dairy products or juice (both fruit and
vegetable).
The Dutch system applies only to plastic bottles greater than 0.5 litres

5
With regard to the scope of the packaging deposit systems in these countries,
the main points are summarised below.
• None of the single-use deposit systems apply to milk (although there are
still some non-deposit return schemes for reusable milk bottles in the UK).
The main reason for excluding milk is that returned milk containers pose
particular health and safety concerns. Other reasons for the exclusion of
milk containers appear to be:
- milk is considered to be a staple food in many countries, and
increasing the sale price of milk by applying a deposit is not
considered acceptable;
- milk is not generally sold as a beverage to be consumed ‘on the go’,
and milk containers are not generally littered; and
- in some countries, milk is generally sold in cartons which, due to their
shape, pose specific problems in current reverse vending machines.
Similar arguments apply to vegetable or fruit juices.
• The scope of the current deposit system in Germany is based primarily on
‘ecologically unfavourable’ non-refillable containers. The term
‘ecologically unfavourable’ was defined in a life cycle assessment study
commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency.
The legal framework for the current German deposit system was initially
defined in 2003, but the system faced a number of legal difficulties and
industry challenges, and changes were introduced in 2005 in response to
rulings from the European Court of Justice. One impact of these was the
removal of the legal basis for the individual solutions (also known as
‘island solutions’) where retailers took back only the containers sold in
store, by specifying particular bottle shapes. Retailers operating these
independent solutions avoided the cost of participating in clearing
systems. An unfortunate consequence of this approach was that these
retailers often stopped selling cans due to their generic shape.
• Single-use glass bottles account for a very small volume of the beverages
sold in Sweden (~ 0.5%). As a consequence, the Swedish deposit system
has not been expanded to include single-use glass packaging. However,
deposits do apply to returnable glass bottles, which have a significant
market share especially for beer.
2.3 PARTIES INVOLVED IN DEPOSIT SYSTEMS
Although the most visible parties in a packaging deposit system are retailers
and consumers, a range of players have to be involved to ensure a deposit
system works effectively. The exact roles of these players need to be clearly
defined and agreed. The typical roles are summarised below.
• Companies which bottle beverage products and companies which
import packaged products have to ensure that a deposit is applied to
their products and that the beverage packaging is appropriately labelled.
These companies are required to register and pay into a centralised fund

6
to finance the running of the system. In some countries, such as Sweden,
the companies are also responsible for the collection of the empty
beverage packaging from the retailer and forwarding it to counting and
sorting facilities.
• Retailers are required to pay the deposit on purchasing the beverage
product from the producer or importer, and to charge the customers the
deposit on the sale of the beverage products. This requires them to
operate systems that allow them to track the value of deposit income.
The retailers are also expected to engage in the take-back of returned
packaging and to refund deposits to customers. Examples from other
European countries with deposit schemes in place show that the return of
empty beverage containers to the shop is generally done using reverse
vending machines (RVMs), especially in larger shops. Smaller shops may
handle the returns manually. In addition, some kind of waste beverage
packaging storage system needs to be in place at retail sites.
A possible option is that retailers are not involved in the take-back of
empty beverage packaging, and that consumers deposit packaging at
other separate collection points (eg using RVMs) and obtain their refund
through some other mechanism. However, ERM has not identified any
examples of deposit systems which do not include retailer involvement in
the collection of empty beverage packaging in some way.
• Logistics or waste management companies are required to collect the
waste beverage containers and transfer them for recycling. Where shops
have collected the empty beverage containers manually, counting is
required. Sometimes, further sorting of beverage containers also needs to
take place prior to recycling. The counting and sorting is generally done
at specific counting and sorting facilities operated by the clearing house
(see below).
Any revenue from the material recycling process is usually fed back into
financing the system.
• In most cases, a centralised body (a ‘clearing house’) is established to
administer the funds required to operate the deposit and return system.
However, this is not always the case. The German deposit system is more
modular, with no centralised clearing house, but rather a number of
service providers operating as clearing houses.
Importantly, a centralised body is required to balance out the deposit
income that retailers receive from selling beverages against the refunds
reimbursed to customers. Or, as is the case in Germany, the different
clearing houses are required to balance out the deposits and refunds
between each other and ensure that the deposits and refunds at the
retailers balance.
The centralised body is usually responsible for registering and collecting
fees from packer/fillers and importers of beverage products, and also for
ensuring that income from material recycling is reinvested into the
system. In Germany, the centralised body is not involved in the money

7
flows. Instead, its main responsibilities include the management of the
deposit label, the provision of the master database, and the IT interface.
• Consumer involvement is key and mandatory, inasmuch as consumers
are required to pay the deposit value in addition to the product purchase
price, and must return the empty beverage container in order to obtain
the refund. If the deposit level is too low and the consumer is not
sufficiently incentivised to return the empty beverage container, the
return rate will be low and the deposit system has in effect failed.
• A monitoring or enforcement body is required to ensure that the system
is not subject to fraudulent behaviour or claims by any player in the
deposit system. In reality, this is done by various parties, including the
organisation administering the system, the ‘inland revenue’, clearing
houses, etc. Also, some government department generally is in charge of
monitoring/auditing the organisation administering the system.
As empty beverage containers (new and waste) are effectively assigned a
financial value over and above their inherent material value (eg scrap
value for aluminium can), monitoring and enforcement procedures need
to be in place to prevent fraudulent claims of deposit values.
It is important that the system also protects the full range of players
including:
- consumers, to ensure that deposits are repaid;
- retailers, to ensure that they can reclaim any deposits repaid ‘over and
above’ the value of the deposits which they have collected; and
- packer/fillers, to protect those who are legitimately funding the
systems against potential free-riders who may attempt to operate
outside the system.
2.4 MANDATORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY DEPOSIT SYSTEMS
A further design consideration for deposit schemes for beverage containers is

whether they are operated as mandatory or voluntary systems. The European
schemes reviewed by ERM are all national schemes and are all mandatory.
This is principally seen to be necessary to avoid market distortion towards
those who might otherwise not voluntarily participate. If two soft drinks
firms are competing for business, one selling products with deposits on their
packaging, and the other deposit-free, the consumer will see the cheaper price
for the latter and, other things being equal, choose their product in preference.
2.5 LABELLING CONTAINERS
Mandatory packaging deposit systems require all packaging within the scope
of the system to be labelled. The label is required to meet two functions, as
follows.
1. To provide the consumer with information that the beverage product is
part of the deposit scheme and the value of the deposit required to be paid.

8
2. To verify the packaging is part of the valid deposit system. The label needs
to be designed or applied in such a manner as to limit fraud.
Labels are applied, in the case of cans, during the printing of the can or, if self-
adhesive labels are used, during the filling process, and, in the case of bottles,
during the filling process, when the label is applied. The packer/filler or
importer is required to pay a charge to the centralised body or bodies when
the product enters the market, and charge the deposit to the retailer
purchasing the beverage product. The label is one means of indicating that
the packaging is part of the official deposit system and the appropriate charge
has been paid to the centralised body.
In those countries operating deposit systems (and, in particular, those relying

on RVMs as a collection method), part of the labelling information is generally
a bar code specific to the country of sale and the product. This helps ensure a
deposit is not refunded on a container which was purchased in another
country where an initial deposit has not been paid.
In Denmark and Germany, there are strict guidelines and procedures for those
buying and applying the labelling ink. The countries have introduced security
codes using a special ink combination in order to eliminate fraud from the
copying of barcodes. The ability to use the ink and labels is only afforded to
those parties which have paid the necessary fees into the central system.
2.6 TYPICAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER COLLECTION MECHANISMS
The initial collection of used single-use beverage containers is linked to the

refund of the deposit. As a result, the mechanisms for returning containers
are generally linked to retailers who are selling beverage products.
Collection of single use beverage containers usually involves either:

• reverse vending machines (RVMs); and/or
• retailers manually collecting and storing containers.
RVMs accept waste beverage containers and provide a means of deposit

refund (generally in the form of a refund ticket to be redeemed in store; no
purchase is generally required). Their use reduces the need for manual
handling of returned beverage containers, and the technology is available in a
range of different styles and levels of sophistication. Because the use of RVMs
has implications for this and several subsequent sections of this chapter, they
are dealt with separately in Section 2.15.
Even if RVMs are employed in the deposit systems, manual collection systems
are typically also required, if only to offer a ‘back up’ when the RVMs are not
functioning, or are not equipped to take the full range of containers covered
by the system.

9
For beverage containers accepted manually, retail staff need to be able to
recognise deposit labels, inspect the packaging to ensure it is still intact, and
refund the value of the deposit. The deposit is refunded directly at the store.
The initial point of collection triggers the repayment of the deposit to the
consumer. In many RVMs, in order to avoid duplicate fraudulent claims for
the deposit value, beverage container such as cans and plastic bottles are
punctured or crushed, or subsequently crushed in a compactor. If manually
collected, the waste beverage containers are generally counted at a counting
facility. Prior to transport of the containers to that facility, the storage of
returned containers needs to ensure that the containers are not damaged and
must be secure, to avoid theft and subsequent duplicate claims of the refund
value.
2.7 SORTING, BULKING AND RECYCLING/RECOVERING OF CONTAINERS
Once collected by the retailer or the RVM, the containers must be sorted,
bulked and sent for reprocessing. Box 2.1 summarises the beverage container
collection method for plastic bottles in the Netherlands. Similar collection
methods apply in the other countries assessed.
Box 2.1 Plastic Bottle Collection Methods in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, waste plastic bottles are bulked up following initial collection. Each retailer
is provided with plastic bags and security tags/closures for the bags. The full and sealed bags
are subsequently transported to one of three centralised sorting and checking facilities. At these
facilities, further checks are made to confirm the returned containers are valid (ie the container
is part of the deposit scheme) and retailers are provided with a confirmation report on the exact
value of the deposits for which they receive reimbursement from the centralised body.
The requirements at the sorting facilities determine the initial sorting required
at the retailers. Most sorting facilities use automated high speed sorting
machines handling up to 500 containers per minute and able to sort co-
mingled plastic bottles, cans and glass (although generally no more than 20%
glass, to avoid breakage). Glass bottles may be sorted separately at the
retailers due to the specific requirements for their storage (glass bottles are
generally stored in rigid containers (eg pallet boxes) whereas plastic bottles
and cans are stored in plastic bags).
Some collection and storage methods at retailers will result in a little

additional sorting. For example, in Denmark and Sweden, the material
fractions (plastic, cans, glass) are generally sorted in the RVM or manually,
and arrive at the sorting facility in separate bags. In addition, in Sweden a
number of retailers have separate RVMs for plastic bottles and cans, as combi-
RVMs are significantly more expensive.
In Germany, the empty beverage containers generally arrive at the sorting and
counting facility as co-mingled containers. Manual sorting of containers can
result in single stream materials ready for counting. However, if the retailer

10
has little storage space, or the RVM is small, different containers may be
collected together, and require sorting downstream, before they can be sent to
reprocessing.
To optimise the recycling of containers (and therefore their value), the sorting
process needs to make distinctions:
1. between the three main types of containers listed; and
2. between additional sorting characteristics outlined in Table 2.2.
In some cases, this may not be easily achieved (eg glass containers which are
covered with complete labels/sleeves).
Table 2.2 Optimal Sorting Requirements
Main Types of Containers Additional Individual Characteristics

Polymer bottles Polymer type
Colour (clear, white, green, etc)
Glass bottles Colour (clear, green, brown)
Cans Metal type
2.8 ASSURING SECURITY AND PREVENTING FRAUD
The packaging label provides some security against any initial fraud, but
additional procedures need to be in place to prevent fraudulent deposit
claims, both before and after the packaging item is used.
Once the packaging has been produced and the deposit label has been
applied, the packaging assumes a value equal to that deposit (and the value of
the deposit might well exceed the value of the packaging itself). If the deposit
label is applied prior to the packing/filling operation, the deposit value will
effectively be assumed by the empty packaging. Any logistics operation may
need tighter security arrangements to prevent theft of empty packaging (eg
warehousing), as deposit refunds could potentially be ‘reclaimed’ without
having been paid in the first place.
At the other end of the packaging life cycle, it is necessary to ensure that the
deposit on the packaging is only claimed once. As previously mentioned,
retailers and RVMs are the main routes to obtain a deposit refund, and they
store collected containers prior to movement to either sorting or recycling
facilities. As a result, procedures need to be in place to prevent these
containers being subject to duplicate fraudulent refunds. An intact container
can potentially be stolen and have its deposit claimed again at any point after
its initial collection, until it is recycled/reprocessed, so secure arrangements
have to be made along the waste supply chain.
Duplicate claims on containers returned via RVMs can be prevented by

crushing returned containers. For glass bottles or manual take-back, retailers
need to keep the waste beverage containers secured until they reach the
counting facility.

11
As the UK is an island, the potential for fraud is less than many other
countries, as, with the exception of the Irish border, cross-border movement of
containers is less straightforward and much more costly. If a system were to
operate in the UK, RVM manufacturers have suggested that a system using
the existing barcode to identify a product manufactured or imported into the
UK would suffice.
Potential fraud in the UK would most likely be confined to small scale

photocopying or production of fake barcodes, labels and deposit vouchers
(Consumer Fraud). It is far less likely that large scale fake container
manufacture (Industrial Fraud) would be an issue; it would need to be on a
large scale, and would require bulk loads of containers to be deposited and
placed into the RVMs, which would be relatively easy to detect in most
locations. The RVMs can also include security systems to identify repeat
containers and bar codes of the same type, with automatic alerts to the retail
outlet.
Direct discussions with representatives of the organisations administering the

deposit schemes in Denmark and Sweden suggest that fraud is not a major
issue in these countries. It is generally detected and dealt with swiftly
through improvements to the RVMs or the system itself. Examples of fraud
include:
• copying of the barcode and applying to non-deposit bearing containers;
• purchase of beverage products abroad and selling in shops (eg corner
shops); and
• customers or shop staff feeding containers through twice.
2.9 POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF DEPOSIT SYSTEMS
There is a range of anecdotal information regarding the H&S implications of

accepting waste beverage containers at retail sites. This includes concerns
regarding the safe storage of glass containers, the return of containers
containing residual beverages and odour issues associated with empty
packaging.
On a more practical note, retailers need to implement appropriate and safe

storage to minimise any risk of material spillage. Furthermore, for glass
bottles in particular, moving large numbers of the containers around the store
could give rise to a manual handling risk to the retailer, although no more of a
risk than the receipt and movement of products for sale.
While all of these points seem reasonable, the different national deposit
systems have generally addressed these and ERM has been unable to find any
statistical data that lends support to health and safety concerns over and
above the general handling of beverage containers. It should be possible to

12
mitigate all of the identified concerns by undertaking an appropriate risk
assessment.
Health and safety is the main reason for milk and juice not generally being
part of the deposit schemes, due to concerns over odours and potential health
issues with any remaining beverage in returned containers. Depending on the
frequency of collection, the waste beverage containers may be stored at the
retailers for some time, potentially in the vicinity of food products sold in
store.
2.10 POTENTIAL CROSS BOUNDARY ISSUES AND SINGLE MARKET IMPLICATIONS
Deposit systems in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark have all
had to consider how to handle consumer imports of packaged beverages and
also the implications of beverage containers being returned into the deposit
system from outside the national boundaries.
The deposit systems are national systems and therefore beverages sold within
the respective countries are required to bear a deposit and the consumer is
entitled to a refund. Beverages purchased by the consumer in other countries
do not form part of the deposit schemes. To align with the emphasis of
increasing recycling rates, some of the deposit schemes allow for the RVMs to
accept non-deposit bearing beverage containers, but, of course, no deposit is
returned.
A specific issue of the cross-border sales between Germany and Denmark is

that German retailers near the Danish border are authorised through an
exemption by the local government in Schleswig Holstein to sell drinks to
Scandinavian consumers without charging the German deposit. This is not
the case for other border areas in Germany. The Scandinavian consumers
must complete an export declaration confirming their intention to export the
beverages purchased to their home countries on the same day. The
declaration does not contain a statement preventing these customers from
returning empty beverage containers to the border shops. German retailers
have suggested that the Danish deposit is applied to beverages sold to Danish
consumers in German border shops, but this involves a number of practical
issues (eg control of the Danish deposit label in Germany, what shops should
be included, collection in Germany) that are considered unworkable by the
Danish deposit system.
ERM was unable to determine any particular barrier of deposits systems that
would be worse for foreign suppliers compared with new national suppliers.
There does not seem to be any difference in joining a scheme whether you are
a national brewery, a foreign brewery, an importer or whatever. The only
possible barrier would be that new companies have to learn about the system,
and that might be easier if you are national, owing to personal experience and
language issues.

13
2.11 COSTS AND INCOME STREAMS
The main activities associated with running a packaging deposit and

collection system that incur costs are listed below.
• administrative and data functions;
• administration of money flow;
• labelling procedures;
• security and fraud prevention;
• public awareness raising;
• packaging collection systems (eg RVMs);
• movement of waste packaging; and
• reprocessing of waste packaging (although this is not peculiar to deposit
systems).
There are also additional costs associated with the time and resources spent:
• monitoring and regulating the system;
• reviewing the effectiveness of the system, and
• agreeing the scope and value of deposits paid.
In order to meet these costs, income is generated from three principal routes,
as follows.
1. Fees charged to industry – typically on packer/fillers and importers who
place beverage containers on the market. Charges are usually made in
proportion to the number of beverage products placed on the market.
2. Deposits which are charged but not redeemed, because the packaging is
not returned by the consumer.
3. Value of the waste material collected.
In running a successful deposit system, it is important that the income

generated ‘matches’ the costs incurred as closely as possible, as most deposit
systems run as ‘not for profit’ systems. However, determining the costs and
revenues of operating a ‘cost neutral’ deposit system are challenging for a
number of reasons, including:
• the number of packer/fillers and importers of beverages is subject to
change and hence the income received from these parties will fluctuate;
• the volumes and types of containers placed on the market are subject to
market fluctuations (eg seasonal variations, market trends, general
economic influences) and hence the income received from packer/fillers
and un-redeemed deposits will also fluctuate;
• the value of the deposit will influence container return rates and therefore
the total value of unredeemed deposits (see below);

14
• return rates have a direct effect on the costs associated with collecting,
movement and recycling of containers, but the return rate is difficult to
predict, particularly during the initial operation of a deposit system; and
• the value of collected materials will fluctuate according to recycling
markets.
For these reasons, the centralised body is usually responsible for ensuring the
fair allocation of costs between industry players and the monitoring of system
costs. This has resulted in changes to the deposit value in some systems.
The deposit systems reviewed in this project have all been in existence for
some time. In particular, those in Sweden and Denmark are well-established
systems that have evolved from existing deposit systems for refillable
containers. Box 2.2 provides some thoughts on the aspects associated with
establishing a new deposit system in a country where no existing system is in
operation.
Box 2.2 What Needs to be In Place Before Launching a Deposit System?
Introducing a deposit system from ‘scratch’ requires careful planning. Some of the main
implications of establishing a new system are summarised below.
• All producers and importers will need to label their products and pay into the centralised
fund and the centralised body would need to have been established.
Otherwise safeguards would need to be put in place to:
- avoid producers operating outside the system having an unfair market advantage (the
purchase price of their goods would be lower than those within the system).
- reduce consumer confusion (eg some drinks would include a deposit; others would not).
• Labelling procedures and associated security arrangements would need to be in place.
• The beverage container collection infrastructure would need to be in place to allow

consumers to return beverage containers following product purchase. Once a deposit is
charged, the return mechanism needs to be available.
This would require up front investment in collection infrastructure (eg RVMs or collection
sites) and prior notification of retailers.
• The deposit refund system would need to be clearly established, to ensure all retailers
understand the procedures for charging and reimbursing deposits.
• A consumer education campaign would be required to ensure they understand the system.
• Arrangements for sorting and recycling of containers would need to be in place.
2.12 VALUE OF THE DEPOSIT
In most countries, the value of the deposit varies according to the type and/or
size of container. Table 2.3 provides an overview of the deposits charged
according to the different container types in the countries reviewed in this
project. The figures show the value both in national currency but also an
indication of the value in UK sterling.

15
Table 2.3 Value of Deposits on Beverage Containers (†)
Country Plastic Bottles Aluminium Cans Glass Bottles

Denmark < 1 litre DKK 1.00 < 1 litre DKK 1.00 < 1 litre DKK 1.00
(~11 pence) (~11 pence) (~11 pence)
0.5 litre DKK 1.50 ≥ 1 litre DKK 3.00 ≥ 1 litre DKK 3.00
≥ 1 litre DKK 3.00

(~32 pence)
Germany* 0.1 to 3.0 litres 25 Euro 0.1 to 3.0 litres 25 Euro 0.1 to 3.0 litres 25 Euro
cents cents cents
Sweden ≤ 1 litre SEK 1.00 All sizes SEK 0.50 N/A

(~ 12 pence) (~ 6 pence)
> 1 litre SEK 2.00

(~ 25 pence)
Netherlands ≥ 0.5 litre 25 Euro cents N/A Specific sizes 25 Euro cents
(~20 pence) (~20 pence)
(*) The German deposit system originally distinguished between sizes of container. In 2005,
the deposit value was standardised to 25 Euro cents for all container sizes.
(†) Exchange rates used: £1 = DKK 9.4249 = SEK 8.0487 = €1.2631
A number of issues need to be considered when setting the value of the

deposit for beverage containers.
• The value of the deposit has to provide a sufficient incentive to encourage
consumers to return containers. Higher deposit values generally result in
higher collection rates for beverage containers.
• However, a deposit which is higher than the cost of manufacturing empty
packaging may encourage fraud by encouraging production of new
containers simply to attempt to obtain a deposit refund.
• The value of the deposit relative to the value of the product may have
unexpected consequences. For example, the retail value of some low cost
soft drinks may be lower than the value of the deposit, which may
discourage consumers from purchasing the product. Conversely, the
relatively high value of some products (eg champagne) to their deposit
may mean that the consumers of such products are unlikely to be
incentivised into returning the container.
• The value of deposits needs to be set such that it is not seen as artificially
increasing the cost of beverages, or hiding a product price increase. This
could impact on general inflation figures and have wider economic
consequences.

16
2.13 TYPICAL CONTAINER RETURN RATES IN DEPOSIT SYSTEMS
The container return rates in European deposit systems are generally very
high, and collection rates of up to 90-95% of containers can be achieved.
Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 show the beverage container return rates achieved in
Denmark and Sweden in recent years. Return rates for the German deposit
system are not made publicly available.
Table 2.4 Single Use Beverage Container Return Rates in Denmark
2005 2006 2007

Metal 83% 84% 84%
Plastic 88% 88% 93%
Glass 83% 87% 91%
Average 84% 86% 87%
Table 2.5 Single Use Beverage Container Return Rates in Sweden
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Metal 86% 85% 85% 86% 85%
Plastic 77% 79% 80% 86% 82%
2.14 IMPACTS OF DEPOSIT SCHEMES
2.14.1 Impacts on Litter Arisings and Composition
Various studies have been conducted on litter composition and arisings. In

general, beverage containers constitute a small proportion of litter and this is
also reflected in some studies assessed. For example, some studies suggest
that the introduction of deposit schemes has had little impact on the cost of
street cleaning and litter reduction in larger cities.
However, examples do also exist which suggest that deposit schemes may
have a positive effect on litter arisings. One such example is a recent nature
clean-up lead by the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, which collected
154 389 cans, of which only 7989 (5%) were deposit-bearing cans; the rest were
foreign cans not part of the Danish scheme.
2.14.2 Impacts on Packaging Material Selection by Producers
Some deposit schemes on single-use beverage containers have been

introduced partly to try to ensure that the market share of refillable beverage
containers remains high. Such deposit schemes have generally been less
successful in this goal, due to a switch in the beverage industry from refillable
to single-use beverage containers. However, the reason for the switch does
not seem to be anything to do with the deposit schemes (both refillables and
non-refillables are generally part of a deposit scheme), but rather an effect of
general market conditions. Reasons include the following.

17
• Practicality and cost: refillables, although also part of the deposit and
refund scheme, are generally collected by the breweries themselves. By
switching to non-refillables, the task of collection and sorting is taken over
by the deposit scheme.
• Space saving at the production location: washing facilities are not
required in a bottling plant for single-use beverage containers.
• Hygiene issues: with reference to the above, these are eliminated.
• Marketing: a refillable bottle looks less attractive in the eyes of the
consumer with its scuffs and marks.
With regard to the selection of beverage container materials, and, more

specifically, the substitution of beverage containers that are not part of a
deposit scheme, the overriding issue seems to be consumer acceptance rather
than avoiding the deposit. However, such examples do exist; one producer in
Sweden switched to a bottle made from a plastic that was not part of the
deposit scheme. This was addressed in a later amendment to the legislation,
with the expansion of the plastics covered.
In Denmark, the scheme has been expanded recently to include non-

carbonated drinks. This could potentially lead to some substitution of
packaging for such beverages (eg still water) into other containers that are not
part of the deposit scheme (eg pouches, cartons) in order to avoid the
imposition of a deposit on the product. However, no examples of this have
yet been seen.
2.15 THE ROLE OF REVERSE VENDING MACHINES (RVMS)
2.15.1 Introduction
The majority of RVMs are similar in both design and function. Machines will
accept an identified range of containers (limited only by the demand for the
material, the size and capacity of the machine and the aperture shape and
size). Containers which have been deposited will then either be stored, or
compacted and shredded within the machine before collection.
Storage capacities are dependant on the overall size of machine (or, in the case
of ‘hole in the wall’ machines, the size of the room behind). As an example, a
2.6m2 footprint unit for up to two waste streams (based on a Tomra T-83 HCp
Dual Cabinet RVM) has a capacity of up to 7000 cans (0.35 litre), or 11 000 PET
bottles (0.5 litre), or 300 glass bottles (crushed).
RVMs vary in size, from small units for just one material type to banks of
several machines capable of accepting a wide range of materials.
RVMs are generally located either within a store (often in the front foyer), or at
the front entrance to a supermarket (in similar locations to cash dispenser
machines). The retailer will chose a location which is intended to draw the

18
consumer into the store to make a purchase. Facilities are also in place in
smaller shopping areas (eg district centres, service stations / garages, 24-hour
shops, etc). Ideally, consumers should be able to return participating
containers to all established points of purchase and be reimbursed the deposit
value.
Figure 2.1 Examples of Reverse Vending Machines
In some cases, RVMs are integrated into a larger recycling facility, which also
is used for containers and materials without a deposit. The RVMs themselves
may also be configured to accept items which are not part of the deposit
scheme.
The most common materials accepted by RVMs are aluminium and steel cans,
plastic bottles (in the main PET) and glass bottles. Cardboard containers and
beverage cartons are also accepted in some cases, but this is not widespread,
as there are more potential hygiene/odour concerns with these materials
(such as milk packaging), and it is harder to handle cartons so that the barcode
can be read. Plastic vending cups and even crisp packets (1) are collected in
some locations (the latter being driven by litter problems rather than any
value in the material).
Containers can be returned to both automated (eg an RVM) and manual (eg a
simple identified container) collection points. Once a deposit scheme has been
in operation for some time, most containers are taken by consumers to
automated collection points. In Germany, when the deposit system was first
introduced, the majority of containers (roughly 80%) were returned to
retailers, with only 20% via RVMs. After 5-6 years of operation, this pattern
has switched, with approximately 80% of the containers now being returned
to RVMs and 20% to retail outlets. A similar pattern is noted in other
countries with well developed deposit systems.
(1) Sawtry Community College, Peterborough as reported by Peterborough Today, accessed from
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/RECYCLING-The-vending-machine-that.998768.jp, October 2008.

19
Where manual systems are used, an additional counting stage is required.
This is usually reflected by a lower deposit value for containers.
2.15.2 Identifying Containers
The vast majority of RVMs will identify a container by reading its barcode.
This will either be the existing barcode on the packaging, or an additional
‘national’ barcode which has been added where there is a high potential for
cross border movement of products from one country to another. The RVM
will identify the barcode on a database before accepting the container. Using a
barcode technology means that additional containers can easily be added to
the deposit scheme and the barcode database updated. Most systems use a
database in excess of 100 000 barcodes.
Some machines will include additional technologies to identify the container;

most comprising of a camera system which will recognise the shape and/or
an additional identification marking on the container. This is particularly the
case where the potential for fraud and cross border movement of containers is
a major concern (such as the schemes in Denmark and Germany). These
systems are more complex and expensive.
Any rejected materials will be ejected from the machine unless the machine
has been programmed to accept the container but not issue any refund. The
deposit is refunded once the container has been successfully identified.
2.15.3 Refund of Deposits
Most machines refund a voucher or ticket deposit, which is then taken to the
store checkout to be redeemed for cash or used as part payment for purchases.
This encourages the consumer to enter the store and spend, which is cited as
one of the benefits of a RVM system to the retail industry (though see also
Section 3.8.3). Some machines refund cash directly, although this is generally
recognised as a more expensive method (this is because the machines require
more maintenance and there are inherent security risks associated with
handling, loading and storing cash).
Some systems offer alternative rewards (such as loyalty card points). These
are not strictly ‘deposit’ schemes, as no initial charge was made. Such
schemes generally accept a wider range of recyclable materials including
paper, cardboard and plastic bags.
2.15.4 Performance and Key Facts - RVM Deposit Schemes
Sweden - Returpack
The Swedish system is currently in operation for aluminium cans, small and
large PET bottles. Containers can be returned to both manual and automated
locations in retail centres. Across the country there are:
• 10 000 points of return, of which 6500 are RVMs.

20
This is a mandatory system; all containers sold in the sizes specified by the
legislation are part of the deposit scheme. Return rates of 85% for metal cans
and 82% for plastic bottles were reported for 2006.
Denmark – Dansk Retursystem
The Danish system covers glass bottles, plastic bottles and drinks cans, both
single use and refillable, and is a mandatory system. There are more than
7000 sales locations (supermarkets, grocery shops, kiosks, restaurants, cafes,
hotels, catering, and other outlets) registered with Dansk Retursystem as
sellers of beverages in deposit-bearing containers. There are in the region of
2500 RVMs located within these outlets.
Return rates of 84% for cans, 93% for plastic bottles, and 91% for glass bottles
were reported for 2007.
Germany – Deutsche Pfandsystem
The German system covers glass bottles, plastic bottles and drinks cans, both
single use and refillable, and is a mandatory system. There are near to 100 000
points of sale selling beverages in single use packaging and in the region of
21 000 RVMs supporting the deposit system.
Return rates for the German system are not made publicly available.
The Netherlands – Stichtling Verpakkingen Nederland
The Dutch system covers plastic bottles and refillable glass bottles, and is a
mandatory system.
2.15.5 Cost and funding of RVMs
In Europe, RVMs are generally purchased by the retailer (whereas, in the US,
retailers mostly lease machines).
Financial support is provided to the shops in several of the countries assessed,

in the form of a handling allowance/subsidy. The allowance is paid per
container and varies according to container type, in-store equipment (ie
whether the shop has RVMs, compactors). These subsidies are provided to
stores in order to optimise the ‘bottle room’ with regard to equipment and lay-
out and to further the efficiency of the whole collection chain.
In Sweden, the allowance being paid to shops with RVMs is higher than that
paid to shops without, in order to encourage shops to install RVMs. In
Denmark, it is the opposite, with shops with RVMs and compactors receiving
the smallest allowance, and shops without the largest allowance, in order to
reflect the actual cost to the retailer more accurately. The fees paid by
producers and importers cover the handling allowance. The handling fee is
administered by the central organisation.

21
Other financial support may also be available. For example, in Denmark, part
of the logistics fee paid by producers and importers is used to improve
efficiency in shops through financial support to optimise ‘bottle room’ layout,
equipment, etc.
The outright purchase cost of RVMs ranges from just a few thousand GBP for
a small machine, suitable for a service station or convenience shop, through to
£20 000 and above for high volume machines which can accept in the region of
3000 containers per day (1). A premium is paid for machines which can
separate fractions of clear and coloured materials (eg coloured PET and glass
bottles). In Germany for example, the 21 000 RVMs have been installed at an
average cost of about £11 000 each.
Additional costs may be incurred by the retailer, particularly where larger

machines are installed and some building work is required to fix equipment to
the wall, or alter the entrance or other designated area of the store to take
account of the deposit location.
2.16 THE ROLE OF THE CLEARING HOUSE
The role of the clearing house is to administer the deposit and control the flow
of refund money within the deposit system. Importantly, the clearing house is
required to balance out the deposit income that retailers receive from selling
beverages against the refunds reimbursed to customers. This involves
managing the IT systems linked to the RVMs in the stores and the counting
machines at counting and sorting facilities.
In some countries (eg Sweden and Denmark), the role of the clearing house is
held by the organisation administering the national system. This means that
acting as a clearing house is only one of the roles held by the organisation.
Other roles may include: registering and collecting fees from producers and
importers; registering retailers; administering fees; management of the deposit
label; monitoring fraud; collection of empty beverage containers from stores;
operating the counting and sorting facilities; and running public awareness
campaigns.
In Germany, the centralised body is not involved in the flow of money.

Instead, its main responsibilities include the management of the deposit label,
the provision of the master database, and the IT interface.
2.17 SUMMARY – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DEPOSITS SYSTEMS
Table 2.6 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of deposit systems.
(1) This information, which applies to RVMs in general, was provided during an interview with Wolfgang Ringel, Vice
President TOMRA Systems, October 2008

22
Table 2.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Deposit Systems
Advantages Disadvantages
Increased return rates Costs
Most countries without deposit schemes do not Evidence from the national deposit schemes in
reach the same return rates for single use other European countries show that
beverage containers as those achieved in introducing a deposit scheme has cost
countries with deposit schemes. The countries implications to producers and importers, and
that are covered in this study (and that report retailers. A presentation (1) from Deutsche
their figures) all exceed 80% return rates, and a Pfandsystem GmbH (the German deposit
number of material return rates exceed 90%. system for disposal drinks packaging)
concluded that compulsory deposits cost
around three times as much per container as
household-based collections.
Litter Reduction Labelling

Various studies suggest that beverage Mandatory packaging deposit systems require
packaging makes up a relatively small all packaging within the scope of the system to
proportion of litter, so any impacts will be be labelled, so that the consumer knows the
limited. However, a Danish litter survey package is in the scheme, and the deposit due.
collected 154 389 cans, of which only 7989 (5%) Schemes that use RVMs also benefit from
were deposit-bearing cans; the rest were national barcodes, to prevent cross-border
foreign cans not part of the Danish scheme. fraud.
Cleaner waste stream Duplication of Effort

The facts that the deposit-bearing packaging is If alternative waste collection systems are
separately collected, and that a financial already in place, there is a significant
reward is given for its return, mean that the possibility that the introduction of a deposits
quality of recyclates arising from deposit scheme will create some duplication of effort,
schemes is generally very good indeed, and with the two schemes acting in parallel to
can therefore command high prices at the collect the same waste. This is inefficient,
reprocessors. costly and environmentally damaging.
Job creation Legal Issues

The costs and complexity of deposit schemes The original introduction of the German
also give rise to some benefits, one of which is deposit scheme suffered a number of legal
job creation. It is anticipated that there will be challenges, which ultimately led to changes
some degree of job creation at varying points being made in the legislation. This process is
in the supply chain, but notably the clearing costly and leads to potentially damaging
house, whose entire existence is down to the market uncertainty.
deposits scheme.
Impact on Retailers
Deposit schemes bring new responsibilities on
retailers, to add deposits to certain products,
and to refund those deposits at a later date on
presentation of empty packaging. The retailers
also need to set aside valuable store space to
collect the returned containers.
(1) http://www.proeurope-congress.com/ws1/Bernd%20Sieberger%20DPG.pdf [23Oct08 @ 11:49]

23
3 THE CURRENT UK SYSTEM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter outlines the features of the UK’s existing systems for the
collection and recycling of single use beverage containers. In order to
understand the background to the UK situation, this chapter includes
information on the types of single use beverage containers sold and disposed
of in the UK and current legislative drivers which encourage the collection
and recycling of waste containers.
This chapter is split into the following sections:

Section 3.2 Types of Beverage Packaging in the UK
Section 3.3 The UK Beverage Sector
Section 3.4 Single Use Beverage Containers in Waste
Section 3.5 The UK Packaging Supply Chain
Section 3.6 Relevant Legislative and National Targets
Section 3.7 The UK’s Packaging Waste Recycling Performance
Section 3.8 Voluntary Schemes in the UK
Section 3.9 Scottish Proposals for a Deposit System
Section 3.10 Costs of Running Current UK System
Section 3.11 Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages of Current UK System
3.2 TYPES OF BEVERAGE PACKAGING IN THE UK
Nearly 24 billion beverage packaging units were sold in the UK in 2007 (1),
excluding HDPE bottles. HDPE is the main material used to package milk in
the UK (around 80% of all milk sales in the UK are sold in HDPE bottles).
ERM has not been able to establish reliably the number of HDPE bottles sold
in the UK, but one estimate is that around 40% of the 540 000 tonnes of UK
bottles are HDPE. If a typical HDPE bottle weighs 30 grams, this would
amount to 7200 million HDPE bottles, which seems to be of the right order,
and would increase the total to over 31 billion packaging units.
These data are presented in Table 3.1.
(1) Rexam Beverage Radar Statistics 2007.

24
Table 3.1 Packaging Types in the UK
Packaging Type Number of Units (Millions) Percentage

Cans 7514 24%
Refillable Glass 423 1%

Non Returnable Glass 6685 21%
Refillable PET 0 0%
Non Refillable PET 6770 22%
Pouch 348 1%
Cartons 1856 6%
Other Packaging 376 1%
HDPE Bottles (ERM estimation) 7200 23%
3.3 THE UK BEVERAGE SECTOR
Soft Drinks
The UK consumed around 14 billion litres of soft drinks in 2007, which is

equivalent to around 234 litres per person. This is split between carbonated
drinks (41%), dilutables (24%), bottled water (15%), fruit juice (10%) and still
and juice drinks (10%) (1). The UK’s overall soft drink consumption is slightly
less than the West European average, although we consume significantly
more dilutables and significantly less bottled water than the average.
Figure 3.1 Soft Drinks Sold in the UK by Type – 2007
6,000
5,000
4,000
Million Litres
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Bottled Carbonated Dilutables Fruit Juice Still
Water
(1) The 2008 UK Soft Drinks Report: British Soft Drinks Association

25
The total number of soft drink packaging units sold in 2007 is approximately
16 billion (1) (excluding cartons, pouches and other containers such as vending
cups). Of this, by far the greatest proportion is made up of PET bottles of
500ml and above, accounting for approximately 10 billion units. Cans (330ml)
account for approximately 3.5 billion units.
Figure 3.2 Approximate Number of Soft Drink Packaging Units Sold in the UK – 2007
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
Million Units
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
500ml 750-1000ml <500ml <500ml 500ml 750-1000ml 330ml >1000ml
Glass Glass Glass PET PET PET Can PET
Beer Products
Deposit systems in Germany and Denmark both include beer within the scope
of their system. In the UK, beer and related products are purchased
predominately in pubs and clubs, but also through retailers and off-licences.
The vast majority of beer in pubs and clubs is sold on draft and therefore the
product sale is made without primary packaging.
The majority of the market share (in litres) is currently ‘on trade’ (ie licensed
premises), which accounts for 55.9%, with the remaining 44.1% market share
being ‘off trade’ (ie supermarkets, smaller shops and off licences), which is
‘packaged’ beer rather than draft beer (2).
Of the ‘off trade’ market share, 65% is purchased as part of a ‘multiple

purchase’ (the majority of which is thought to be from a supermarket), and
35% is a single ‘impulse’ purchase.
In terms of container type, the vast majority (by market share in litres) is sold
in cans (67%), which equates to approximately 37.4 million packaged units per
(1) Derived from data supplied by the British Soft Drinks Association, email contact October 2008.
(2) British Beer and Pub Association, email contact, October 2008.

26
year, and a lesser volume in glass bottles (32%), which is equivalent to
approximately 25.5 million packaged units per year. The remainder is made
up of plastic PET bottles and a small number of returnable glass bottles, each
accounting for in the region of 150 000 packaged units each per year (1).
Figure 3.3 Off Trade Beer Sales (Estimation of Packaged Units) (2)
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Thousands
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Cans Single Use Returnable Single Use
Glass Bottles Glass Bottles PET Bottles
Around 100 litres of beer per person per year are consumed in the UK,
compared to around 20 litres per head per year of wine (3). Beer consumption
is considerably lower than that of some European countries.
Wine Products
In 2007, 1360 million 75cl bottles of wine were consumed in the UK. This
generated almost 40% (by weight) of all household beverage packaging,
contributing around half a million tonnes of packaging to the household waste
stream (4).
3.4 SINGLE USE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS IN WASTE
In the UK, waste single use beverage containers predominately arise in

household waste, commercial waste and litter streams, but ERM has been
unable to establish national accurate data on:
(1) British Beer and Pub Association, email contact October 2008.
(2) Based on an average container size for Cans of 460ml and bottles 330ml - provided by the British Beer and Pub
Association, email contact October 2008.
(3) British Beer and Pub Association website.http://www.beerandpub.com/beer_facts.aspx
(4) WRAP case study; Lightweight wine bottles: less is more, accessed from www.wrap.org.uk, October 2008

27
• the number or weight of single use beverage containers in each stream; or
• the beverage container composition of each stream in relation to size of
container.
However, discussions with stakeholders and material-specific data suggest it

is reasonable to make a number of assumptions, as detailed below.
Size of Beverage Containers
• Large volume soft drink and beer containers are most likely to arise in the
household and commercial waste streams, and less likely to arise in the
litter stream.
• Small volume soft drinks containers are likely to arise in household,
commercial and litter streams.
Material Types of Containers
• Glass bottles are predominately found in the household waste stream.

The amount of glass packaging in the UK waste stream is around 2.7
million tonnes per annum. Only around 600 000 tonnes are found in the
commercial and industrial waste streams. (1)
• Aluminium cans are predominately found in the household waste stream.
62 300 tonnes of aluminium cans are consumed in the home, with a
further 26 600 tonnes of aluminium cans consumed away from the
home. (2)
• Research on the recycling of plastic beverage containers in the UK has
been led by Recoup, in conjunction with WRAP. Their work has focused
on plastic containers in the household waste stream. It is estimated that
109 000 tonnes (equivalent to 2700 million plastic bottles) were collected
through household waste steams in 2006. Recoup estimates that the
majority of bottles are made from either PET or HDPE material, with a
ratio of 55-60% PET to 40-45% HDPE. (3)
ERM has been unable to identify any comparable data on the types and
volumes of single use beverage containers used/disposed of by the
commercial sector.
3.4.2 Single Use Beverage Containers in Litter
A number of stakeholders raised concerns about the presence of single use

beverage containers in litter, and supported the introduction of deposits on
containers to reduce this problem.
(1) Source: Discussions with British Glass.

(2) 2006 Defra Statistics. Source Alupro website.http://www.alupro.org.uk/facts%20and%20figures.htm
(3) WRAP/Recoup Annual Local Authorities Plastics Collection Survey 2007

28
The most relevant information on the composition of litter in the UK is the
national survey undertaken by ENCAMS, entitled Local Environmental
Quality Survey of England (LEQSE). In the 2004/05 LEQSE, ENCAMS
undertook additional subsidiary research on behalf of INCPEN.
The survey focuses on the occurrence of litter items, rather than measuring the
volume or weight of litter by type. The top ten most commonly found litter
items from this research are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Most Common Litter Items 2004
Litter Item % of Items Counted

Chewing Gum 61.2
Cigarette Ends 33.3
Sweet Wrapper 1.6
Cigarette Related 0.4
Soft Plastic Bottles 0.4
Gum Wrapper 0.3
Soft Drinks Cans 0.3
Snack Packaging 0.3
Fast Food Packaging 0.3
Post Office Elastic Bands 0.2
ENCAMS point out a number of issues relating to beverage containers,

including the following.
• Soft plastic bottles and soft drinks cans featured in the ‘top ten’ in 2004,
but did not feature in the same survey undertaken in 1996. They relate
this to the increase in the ‘food on the go’ culture.
• In relation to the most widespread items (in terms of percentage of sites
where particular litter items were identified):
- soft drinks cans were ranked the 5th most widespread, occurring in
22% of survey sites; and
- soft plastic bottles were ranked the 9th most widespread, occurring in
8% of sites.
Two international studies provide further insight into the possible levels of
beverage containers in litter. A study on litter in Germany in 1998 (1)
concluded that drinks packaging made up 6% (by volume) of litter, while a
study in Georgia, USA, in 2006 (2) concluded that drinks packaging
represented 7.2% (by volume) of litter.
In ERM’s view, single use containers in litter, although relatively small in

terms of number of items, may be considered to have a greater visual impact.
Beverage containers are larger (and arguably persist longer in the
environment) than some of the other common litter items.
(1) "Littering in Germany - RW TÜV study of improperly discarded waste in public spaces in Germany in 1998", RW TÜV
(2) "Georgia 2006 Visible Litter Survey - A Baseline Survey of Roadside Litter", Keep America Beautiful, RW Beck, 2007

29
3.5 THE UK PACKAGING SUPPLY CHAIN
The UK Packaging Regulations (see Section 3.6.3) place obligations on parties

throughout the packaging production chain, starting with the manufacturers
of the packaging materials, through to the pack/fillers and retailers. In
addition, importers are made responsible for the packaging they bring into the
country.
Packaging waste arises at two main points – in the household, and at

commercial facilities. The packaging waste in the household tends to be the
‘primary packaging’ – around the product itself that the customer has bought.
While commercial facilities can also accumulate some primary packaging, if
they are the final customers of goods, they tend to accumulate much larger
quantities of ‘secondary’ (display) and, in particular, transit packaging.
The vast majority of packaging waste from households is collected by local

authorities as part of their regular collection rounds, either as source-
separated dry recyclables or mixed up with the residual waste. Some
household packaging waste is taken by the householder to bring banks or
household waste recycling centres (HWRCs). In both scenarios, the council
arranges for the bulking of the recyclable materials, where possible, and
onward supply to reprocessing companies. Good quality recyclable material
has a market value, and reprocessors pay the councils for the materials
provided.
Packaging waste arising at commercial facilities can be collected by local

authorities, but is typically collected under contract by a waste management
company, who will supply recyclables materials on to reprocessing
companies.
3.6 RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE AND NATIONAL TARGETS
3.6.1 Relevant Targets for Local Authorities
There are two main types of national target that impact on local authorities’
collection and recycling of household and municipal waste, as described
below.
1. The Landfill Directive sets targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable
municipal waste (BMW) sent to landfill in relation to baseline 1995 levels.
The UK is required to reduce BMW landfilled to 75% of 1995 levels by
2010, to 50% by 2013 and to 35% by 2020.
2. Targets for recycling and composting, and for energy recovery, vary
between UK regions, as shown in Table 3.3.

30
Table 3.3 Variations in Targets Across the UK
Northern
Target England Wales Scotland (1) Ireland
[Household] [Municipal] [Municipal] [Household]
Waste to be Recycled 2010: 40% 2006/07: 25% 2010: 40% 2010: 35%
and Composted 2015: 45% 2009/10: 40% 2013: 50% 2015: 40%
2020: 50% 2020: 60% 2020: 45%
2025: 70%
Municipal Waste to be 2010: 53%

Recovered 2015: 67%
2020: 75%
All of these sets of targets are effectively passed down to local authorities,
who are responsible for the collection and management of household and
municipal wastes.
None of these sets of targets set specific requirements to collect or recycle

beverage containers, but any beverage containers which are recycled can
contribute to meeting the household waste recycling targets, and any
biodegradable beverage containers (eg cartons) diverted from landfill can
contribute to the Landfill Directive targets.
In addition, since 2003, the Household Waste Recycling Act has placed a
requirement on all local authorities in England to provide kerbside collections
for at least two recyclable materials by 2010.
3.6.2 The Waste Framework Directive
The revised Waste Framework Directive sets additional targets in relation to

household waste, requiring EU Member States to establish separate
collections of paper, metal, plastic and glass (as a minimum) by 2015, and to
achieve 50% reuse and recycling and 70% including the recovery of materials
by 2020.
3.6.3 The Packaging Waste Regulations
In 1994, the European Union passed the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Directive 94/62/EC (2), designed to harmonise packaging laws, enforce a
degree of recovery and recycling, and control the amounts and types of
substances used for packaging. This was implemented in the UK by two
statutory instruments, the Packaging Essential Requirements Regulations (3) –
covering the amounts and types of materials used – and the Producer
Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations. All three pieces of
legislation have been amended or updated since their original inception, with
(1) In Scotland, an additional cap on treatment of municipal waste by Energy from Waste applies; set at 25% by 2025
(2) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994L0062:EN:HTML [08Jun07 @ 14:52]
(3) SI 2003 No. 1941, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031941.htm [14Mar08 @ 17:20]

31
the aim of increasing their environmental benefit. Unlike some other
European countries, the UK has no separate legislation concerning beverage
packaging.
Under the UK’s Producer Responsibility Regulations (henceforth simply the

Regulations), every company that both handles over 50 tonnes of packaging
waste and turns over in excess of £2M per year (the ‘threshold criteria’) has to
recycle and recover a proportion of its packaging waste. These companies
must determine the total amount of packaging they handle each calendar year
within the scope of the regulations, and then apply two percentages, to arrive
at target recovery and recycling rates. The process is shown in Figure 3.4, and
has been more complicated since 2003/04, with the introduction of material-
specific targets.
Figure 3.4 Packaging Calculations
Packaging x Activity Percentage x UK National Targets (2007)

Recovery 72.0% (at least 92% of
which by Recycling)
Pkg Material Production (6%) Recycling (Material-Specific Targets):

Total Weight Paper 67.5%
Converting (9%)
of Obligated x x Glass 78.0%
Pack/Filling (37%)
Packaging Aluminium 35.0%
Retail (48%)
Steel 58.0%
Plastic 24.0%
Wood 20.5%
The Activity Percentage splits the total responsibility for the packaging
between the four activities involved in its production:
• packaging raw material manufacture (6%);
• converting the raw material into a packaging item (9%);
• pack/filling the item (37%); and
• selling the item (48%).
If the packaging is imported, the responsibility for the activities already

completed falls to the importer (the ‘rolled-up’ responsibility). Conversely,
packaging that is exported accrues no responsibility, because it does not end
up in the UK waste stream.
The second percentage is the UK National Target, which sets what percentage
of the total packaging arising in the UK waste stream must be recovered and
recycled.
The European Directive sets national targets for total recycling and recovery.
Because small companies that do not handle much packaging are exempted
from the UK system, the targets for other companies within the system must
be higher than the overall EU targets. The targets for obligated companies in
the UK are presented in Table 3.4.

32
Table 3.4 UK National Recovery and Recycling Targets 2005-2010
Operation Material 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Recovery Total 65.0% 66.0% 67.0% 72.0% 73.0% 74.0%
Of Which, Recycling 94.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0%
Recycling Paper & Board 66.0% 66.5% 67.0% 67.5% 68.5% 69.5%
Glass 55.0% 65.0% 69.5% 78.0% 80.0% 81.0%
Aluminium 28.0% 29.0% 31.0% 35.0% 38.0% 40.0%
Steel 55.0% 56.0% 57.5% 68.0% 68.5% 69.0%
Plastics 22.0% 23.0% 24.0% 26.0% 27.0% 29.0%
Wood 19.0% 19.5% 20.0% 20.5% 21.0% 22.0%
Complying with the Regulations
The four central obligations imposed by the Regulations are:

• a Registration Obligation, including a related packaging data
requirement;
• a Recovery and Recycling Obligation;
• a Certifying Obligation; and
• a Consumer Information Obligation for companies whose main activity is
selling.
Producers have the choice of complying with these requirements individually,

or joining a compliance scheme. If the latter route is chosen (as it is by over
95% of producers), the producer is simply required to register with the scheme
and annually provide it with data on the packaging handled. A fee is paid to
the scheme, to cover its costs of meeting the other requirements on the
producer’s behalf.
The Annual Timeline
The annual timeline for compliance with the Regulations is presented

schematically in Figure 3.5. Having performed activities in year 0 that accrue
packaging obligations, the company has until the beginning of April to
register with its environment agency, report what packaging it has handled,
and its associated packaging recovery and recycling targets.
Figure 3.5 The Annual Timeline
2. Register with EA for Year 0. 4. Certify to EA that the

Report packaging handled, and appropriate recovery and
recovery and recycling targets. recycling for Year 0 was done.
1. Year 0 Packaging Activities 3. Year 0 Recycling & Recovery Activities
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2

33
Over the course of the following year, the relevant recovery and recycling
must take place (see below), and the company has until the end of January in
year 2 to demonstrate to its agency that it has fulfilled its obligations.
Providing Proof of Recycling – Packaging Recovery Notes (PRNs)
Companies that reprocess packaging materials are audited by the national

environment agencies, after which they may issue Packaging Recovery Notes
(PRNs) for each tonne of packaging material that they reprocess. Accredited
foreign companies that reprocess UK packaging issue packaging export
recovery notes (PERNs); these are entirely equivalent to PRNs, so only the
term PRN is used hereafter.
Each compliance scheme and obligated company must acquire sufficient

PRNs over the course of the year to meet the target levels of recovery and
recycling that they reported to their agency in April, based on their activities
in the previous year.
PRNs are traded on an open market like shares, and are subject to the same
rises and falls in value, depending on supply and demand. The revenue from
PRNs is meant to be reinvested into the reprocessing industry, to fund the
commissioning of further equipment, so that increasing targets can be met.
Recycling Infrastructure
The current UK system is relatively efficient at collecting and recycling

beverage packaging waste, inasmuch as it is handled together with other
similar packaging and non-packaging (notably newspapers and magazines)
recyclable waste. Local authorities across the country have introduced
dedicated collection schemes for dry recyclable materials, but the geographic
coverage and types of materials collected vary significantly between councils.
Although most councils have some form of glass collection – either at kerbside
or by bottle banks – the coverage of plastic collection schemes is much less
advanced. That said, the growth in source-separated collection of plastic from
households has been significant in recent years, and there is a clear correlation
between households served with kerbside plastic collections and the tonnes of
plastic bottles recycled, as shown in Figure 3.6.
There are two distinct challenges that persist for the UK recycling
infrastructure. The first is to increase the coverage (in terms of both
geography and materials accepted) of the source-separated kerbside
collections, so that all residents have the same opportunities to divert their
waste from landfill. The second is to find a way to encourage all those who
have the infrastructure to make full use of it.

34
Figure 3.6 Correlation Between Plastic Bottle Recycling Levels and Households Served
200,000 16
175,000 14

Plastic Bottles Recycled / tonnes 150,000 12
125,000 10
Combined
Kerbside
100,000 8
Bring
Households
75,000 6
50,000 4
25,000 2
0 0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year

Comments on the PRN System
When the Regulations were first introduced, the lower national targets
allowed the reprocessors to collect the bulk of their packaging waste from
retail establishments (eg cardboard from the back of supermarkets), rather
than trying to recover packaging from individual households. This allowed
the Regulations to be met at comparatively low cost.
As the national targets have increased, the easily accessed packaging waste
from commercial sources has to a large extent been captured, leading to the
need for more packaging waste to be recovered from households.
Fortuitously, this requirement has coincided with pressure on local authorities
to increase their recycling (and composting) of household waste, so additional
infrastructure (notably kerbside collections) has been introduced just at the
time it has been needed to support national packaging targets. However, it is
important to note that the driver for this is the council’s municipal waste
recycling targets, not the Regulations. There is no requirement under the
Regulations for local authorities to collect packaging, although their
involvement is critical to industry’s ability to meet its targets.
It is also important to note the Regulations do not set any specific

requirements for the collection or recycling of single use beverage containers.

35
The Regulations allow the recycling of any packaging waste to meet these
targets, and, moreover, were originally designed to make the achievement of
the recycling and recovery targets as easy as possible.
3.7 THE UK’S PACKAGING WASTE RECYCLING PERFORMANCE
The introduction of the Regulations in 1997 coincided with the introduction of

a new and more accurate method of recording packaging waste recycling rates
by packaging type. Table 3.5 provides UK packaging waste recycling data for
1998 and 2006, with data for glass, aluminium and plastic packaging shown in
bold italic text (note, however, that this is not just beverage packaging).
Table 3.5 UK Packaging Waste Recycling and Recovery Rates: 1998 and 2006
1998 (1) 2006 (2)

Packaging Material Tonnage of % Recycled/ Tonnage of % Recycled/
Materials Recovered Materials Recovered
accepted for accepted for
Recycling / Recycling /
Recovery Recovery
Paper 1 894 086 47 2 933 900 78
Glass 503 800 23 1 335 950 51
Aluminium 14 517 13 45 781 32
Steel 182 409 25 392 537 58
Metals 196 926 not calculated 438 308 53
Plastics 125 539 8 457 864 22
Wood 170 000 858 523 73
Total Recycling 2 890 351 29 6 024 545 58
Energy from Waste 448,354 474 705
Total Recovery 3 338 705 33 6 499 250 63
The UK has seen significant growth in the collection and recycling of

packaging waste over this eight year period. However, performance
continues to lag behind other EU countries, as shown in Figure 3.7.
(1) Source www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/alltables.htm

(2) Source: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/packaging-reg07/consultation.pdf

36
Figure 3.7 Packaging Waste Recovery in EU15 (2005)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Recovery
Recycling
30%
20%
10%
0%
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Finland
Ireland
Sweden
Germany
Portugal
Spain
Belgium
Austria
France
Italy
Denmark
Greece
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/data.htm
3.8 VOLUNTARY SCHEMES IN THE UK
At present, there are a number of voluntary schemes in operation in the UK

that are relevant to this project. The following sections discuss initiatives
associated with Recycling Zones, AG Barr’s deposit scheme for Irn Bru,
Tesco’s RVMs and RVM trials run by Recoup.
For a period of time, The Body Shop offered its customers a 10% price
reduction if they returned containers to the shop for refilling. It discontinued
this scheme in 2002, because only 1% of its customers used the service.
3.8.1 Recycling Zones
One initiative aimed at increasing the recycling of waste packaging associated

with goods consumed ‘on the go’ is the Recycling Zones program, sponsored
by Coca-Cola, WRAP and Recoup. This initiative is aimed at high-footfall
locations ‘out of home’, such as shopping centres, transport hubs and theme
parks. Among the locations already running the scheme are Thorpe Park (the
first to open, in June this year), Legoland, Chessington World of Adventures,
Warwick University and Festival Place shopping centre in Basingstoke.

37
Figure 3.8 Recycling Zones
These photos, courtesy of Recoup, show the openings of the Thorpe Park (top left) and Festival
Place (top right) Recycling Zones, and the recycling point at Festival Place. For the last of these,
it was decided that, rather than provide a series of individual recycling receptacles located
around the centre, there would be a focal point of presence which would encourage the
shoppers who use the centre to make a specific visit to the recycling zone.
Feedback from Recoup suggests that the schemes are working quite well, with
a decent capture of materials. If recycling bins are provided alongside waste
bins, most people seem to be willing to use the recycling bins. To that end,
there should be as little restriction as possible on what may be deposited in the
bins. In addition, there is some sign that the main outcome is to divert
packaging from the waste bins to the recycling bins, rather than reduce the
amount of littering.
3.8.2 AG Barr’s Reusable Bottle Deposit Scheme for Irn Bru
One of the only examples of container deposit and reuse scheme in operation
in the UK is Irn Bru, which is still available in refundable glass bottles in

38
Scotland (along with, to a lesser extent, a number other AG Barr brands,
including Tizer, Red Kola, Barr Cola, and Limeade).
Irn Bru is mainly sold in cans and PET bottles, but the traditional method of
sale, in a returnable 750ml glass bottle and plastic crate system, is still used for
many local retailers. Many consumers maintain that the taste is better when
supplied in a glass bottle, which is an important factor in maintaining the use
of glass bottles.
Bottles are returned by consumers to the local retailers, who either provide a
cash refund or shop credit voucher. Bottles are then collected from the shops
and taken to one of a number of distribution centres, before being retuned to
the factory in Cumbernauld for cleaning and refilling.
As well as individuals being incentivised to return bottles for the deposit,

many Scottish charities use the deposit scheme on Barr’s glass bottles to raise
funds.
In 2003, when a deposit value of 20p was in place, the system delivered an
impressive return rate of approximately 85%, and it was reported that Barrs
sold approximately four million 750ml glass bottles of Irn Bru (1). The current
deposit value is 30p, and 70% of bottles are returned for cleaning and reuse.
The AG Barr Annual Report in 2007 comments that each reusable glass bottle
returned is cleaned, refilled and sold around five times during its full life (2).
It is thought that the popularity of the 750ml bottle is in decline, in part as a

result of an increased demand for 2l and 500ml plastic bottles, which favoured
by the large retailers and supermarkets.
3.8.3 Tesco RVMs Trials
Tesco has been trialling RVMs at their stores for over three years, and should
have around 85 operational by the end of the financial year. The Tomra
machines have been well received by customers, but are reported by Tesco not
to pay their way, in that the large initial outlay and operating costs are not
balanced by the revenue from the materials collected. Nor, Tesco report, do
the RVMs bring in many new customers (though we do not know whether the
RVMs increase existing customers’ loyalty). The main incentive to Tesco to
provide the RVMs, therefore, is the good publicity and staff satisfaction that
arises from trying to promote recycling, and, perhaps, the recycling revenues
achieved (though these will have fallen off recently).
The RVMs are typically large units located outside the front of the stores and
capable of accepting a range of materials (aluminium, steel and PET). The
systems now identify packaging by its barcode, and it is directed to a
dedicated storage receptacle, having first been shredded or otherwise reduced
(1) WASTE PLANS Report on Categorisation and Pilot Studies, Scottish Institute of Sustainable Technology, May 2003.
(2) AG Barr Annual Report 2007

39
in size. The customer is rewarded for recycling their materials, being given
Clubcard (loyalty) points that can be redeemed for groceries or other rewards.
An item on BBC Breakfast (7th October 2008) reported that a couple had
financed business class flights home from honeymoon by collecting packaging
litter and returning it to their local Tesco, where the RVM awarded them
Clubcard points which they exchanged for air miles (1). They amassed 36 000
air miles, at a rate of 600 miles per 250 Clubcard points, and one point per four
items recycled. This suggests they deposited 60 000 items. This case
demonstrates that a reward scheme can act as an incentive to reduce litter.
Tesco is now planning to introduce 10 RVMs on high streets around the

country, as a new trial. Once again, the machines are not expected to make
any money, but it is hoped that they will contribute to collecting some of the
‘on-the-go’ packaging waste. The RVMs will also reward participants with
Clubcard points.
3.8.4 Recoup’s RVM Trials
Recoup has been involved in a number of trials of RVMs recently, at Lakeside

shopping centre, Queensgate in Peterborough, and Milton Keynes. The
details of the trials have varied between sites. The trials were designed to
investigate a number of questions, including are the RVMs robust, how well
do they separate materials, what is the quality of the collected material, what
is the public response, and are the incentives taken up?
It should be noted that these RVMs are designed to capture packaging waste
‘on the go’, and are different in that sense from the Tesco RVMs (see
Section 3.8.3), which are, in effect, a bring system. It is not expected that
customers would bring packaging from home to the RVMs in these trials.
The RVMs had three holes: the first for the customer to deposit the bottle; the
second returns the bottle if it is not accepted; and the third to act as a normal
waste bin. The technology used to assess and to sort the bottles is the same
sort of technologies as is used in Material Recycling Facilities (eg optical
devices using infrared), and, as in MRF applications, this has not been 100%
accurate. Feedback on the RVMs themselves has been mixed; the units are
quite bulky, and some felt that a lower-tech unit without the refund would be
better.
The RVM trials have only been for PET bottles, and the capture rate achieved
has been modest (the final report is not yet available, so statistics cannot be
provided). Recoup commented that a better performance might be achieved
with a wider material target – all plastic bottles and cans – even if the sorting
has to take place elsewhere.
(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7654254.stm

40
At Milton Keynes, no incentive was originally offered to encourage the public
to recycle, but then an incentive was introduced, to gauge the effect. The
incentives at the locations varied: a free muffin with a cup of coffee; 50p off a
meal deal at Boots; and a coupon for a curry house. Whether it was the choice
of incentives is not known, but none of these were thought to increase the use
of the RVMs; members of the public who were minded to recycle did so
anyway, and those who weren’t were not (for the most part) persuaded by the
incentives. However, there was very little or no promotion, as the schemes
were so local, and a more coordinated program might have different results.
3.9 SCOTTISH PROPOSALS FOR A DEPOSIT SYSTEM
The Scottish Government has recently conducted a consultation on deposits (1).

The consultation paper suggested that a statutory deposit and return scheme
could help reduce litter, as there would be a financial incentive to return the
container to the retailer. It mentioned that the use of reverse vending
technology would be important, and stated that it may also be sensible to
extend the scheme to other forms of packaging, such as food tins, plastic tubs
and aluminium trays for take-away food.
In terms of enforcement, the consultation suggested that, ideally,

responsibility for the scheme and enforcement would fall to an existing body,
such as SEPA. It was also expected that criminal offences would be
introduced in relation to matters such as not charging a deposit, should a
scheme go ahead.
Under the plans outlined in the consultation, there would be a responsibility

on those receiving drinks containers to ensure that they are recycled or re-
used. It is mentioned that the specific use of funds arising from deposits that
are not reclaimed should be laid out in the provisions. These moneys might
be available to local authorities, who, in practice, have to meet the costs
associated with collection and treatment of unreturned containers. Based on
financial data from Danish and Norwegian scheme, the consultation paper
estimates that a deposit and return scheme in Scotland would cost around £17
million a year.
In consulting with Friends of the Earth (FoE) on this project, they referred us
to their response to the Scottish consultation (2), supporting the proposals. FoE
believes that a single centralised agency, as in Denmark, would ensure
efficient administration. It has run a community-based study on the reuse of
milk bottles with local retailers, and found that there was significant support,
but that there were obstacles to sourcing suppliers of both glass bottles and
milk bottling facilities to retailers. These supply chain issues would need to be
addressed for successful schemes.
(1) The Scottish Government (2008) The Consultation Paper on Potential Legislative Measures to Implement Zero Waste,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1056/0063943.pdf [17Oct08 @ 09:52]
(2) FoE (2008) Consultation Paper on Potential Legislative Measures to Implement Zero Waste, A Response from Friends of
the Earth, Scotland.

41
3.10 COSTS OF RUNNING CURRENT UK SYSTEM
The costs of running the current UK system are relatively low. Collection
costs are covered by local authorities, for the packaging collected from
households as part of the usual waste collection service, or retailers, for
commercial packaging waste.
Packaging producers must buy or otherwise obtain PRNs, which are bought
and sold on the open market, and fluctuate according to opinion on likely
supply and demand levels. Let’s Recycle quoted the prices presented in
Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Current PRN Prices (£/te)
August September
Glass 19 - 23 19 - 23
Paper 2 – 2½ 2 – 2½
Aluminium 65 - 75 55 – 65
Steel 10 - 14 9 – 12
Plastics 21 - 24 21 – 24
Mixed — energy recovery 2 - 2½ 2 - 2½
Wood 2 - 2½ 2 - 2½
Source: http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/prnPrices.jsp [09Oct08 @ 16:08]
Some stakeholders have raised a question about the likely effect on PRN
prices, if UK targets do not continue to rise in the future. With the necessary
infrastructure in place to achieve the required recycling and recovery, it is
argued that PRN prices will collapse, unless targets continue to rise. Since the
PRN revenue is intended to be invested in further infrastructure for recovery
and recycling of packaging, it is possible that that revenue will not be required
if the recovery targets do not increase, and the required level of infrastructure
is already in place and the targets continue to be met.
Beyond PRNs, producers must pay a fee annually to register with their local
environment agency, and will incur further costs if employing a compliance
scheme.
The other significant sum of money in the packaging chain is the value of the
reprocessed material. Let’s Recycle quotes prices for aluminium used
beverage cans in the region of £750-£800 per tonne (1), and, to some extent, this
value tends to flow back up the supply chain.
3.11 SUMMARY – ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CURRENT UK SYSTEM
The chief advantages and disadvantages of the current UK system for

handling single-trip beverage packaging are outlined in Table 3.7.
(1): http://www.letsrecycle.com/prices/metalsPrices.jsp [09Oct08 @ 16:21]

42
Table 3.7 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Current UK System
Equitable System Moderate Recycling Performance
So far, it does not seem that the PRN system Figure 3.7 shows that the UK’s packaging
has particularly favoured one material over recycling performance is far from exemplary in
another. Although the recycling targets are comparison with other European countries.
different for different materials, to some However, this might be quite different if
extent the targets reflect the ability of the national spend on the systems is taken into
materials to be recycled. consideration.
Cost and Efficiency Litter

The UK system was original designed to meet It is hard to deny that there is too much litter in
the requirements of the EU Packaging the UK and there seems to be political appetite
Directive at minimum cost, and it is generally for measures to be taken to reduce littering.
agreed that this has been achieved. By
stimulating an efficient system for collecting Complexity and Confusion
packaging waste from the most convenient The UK system is by no means unique in its
locations (originally at back of retail stores), complexity, but the PRN system does leave
the overall costs of the collection process were many businesses perplexed – particularly
kept relatively low. because of the disjuncture between the
packaging waste that is generated and the
As the targets have grown, first bring banks targets for recovery and recycling which are set
and then kerbside collection schemes have for each organisation.
bolstered the rates of collection, so that the
supply of recyclate has kept pace with Confusion on the part of the general public is
demand. There is no need for a separate more directed at the variety of collection
collection of beverage packaging materials, schemes offered by local authorities. While this
which can therefore be comingled with is not a result of PRN system, the confusion
newspapers and other recyclates. caused does jeopardise the potential success of
kerbside collection schemes.
Labelling
The UK system introduces no additional Limited Material Collection Coverage
requirement for labelling. All packaged A significant barrier to recycling some materials
products are already included, so no (and plastics in particular), is the limited
differentiation is necessary. coverage of collection schemes. The majority of
households in the UK are not offered kerbside
plastic collection, and, although bring banks
Voluntary RVMs and other facilities may exist, this is a genuine
Tesco, Coca Cola, Recoup and WRAP (among barrier to recycling.
others) have all trialled RVMs, as a means of
further increasing recycling rates and Single Target for Household and Commercial
reducing litter. Packaging
The PRN system has single targets for each
material (eg 78% of glass to be recycled).
Collection efforts have therefore focused first on
the easiest materials to collect, which is business
waste from the back of stores. This has been to
the detriment of household recycling, which has
therefore been a lower priority until more
recently.

43
Role of Local Authorities
Local authorities are playing an increasingly
important part in meeting national packaging
waste targets, as the amount of packaging
recyclates separately collected from households
increases. These materials are needed to ‘top
up’ the bulk collections from businesses, in
order for the national packaging recovery
targets to be met. However, there is no
compulsion under the Packaging Regulations
for local authorities to collect and recycle these
materials. Their drivers are the recycling and
composting targets set on councils. The
contribution of local authorities to national
targets may therefore be holding businesses
back from achieving greater recovery of
packaging waste and prevention through
improved design.

44
4 HOW DEPOSIT SYSTEMS COULD WORK IN THE UK
The previous chapters have reviewed the typical features of beverage deposit
systems, and the current packaging arrangements in the UK. This chapter
combines the two sets of findings, by assessing how a deposit system could
work in the UK, and any barriers that could arise in implementing it.
4.1 SCOPE OF A POTENTIAL SYSTEM
The scope of work defined in this project was to examine the potential for a
deposit scheme on plastic, aluminium and glass single-use beverage
containers. Simplistically, the options can be represented by a Venn diagram,
as shown in Figure 4.1, which assumes as a starting point that all pack sizes
would be included in the system, but that certain products would be
excluded. Each of the four categories is discussed below.
Figure 4.1 Venn Diagram of Scope of Deposit System
Packaging
Product Milk Cartons Materials
Fruit Steel
and Alcoholic
Products Aluminium
Vegetable Disposal
Juices Cups
Soft Drinks Glass
Plastic
Water
Deposit
System
Single
All Trip
Sizes
Reusable
Pack Format
Size
4.1.1 Product
The initial premise of the project was to investigate options for deposits on
beverage containers, but differentiating between packaging based on its
contents seems at first to be illogical – if there is a deposit on beer bottles, why
not jam jars? If the fundamental goal is to increase recycling and recovery,

45
surely the products deserve equal consideration? After all, it is the packaging
material itself, not the contents, that will be recycled.
We are not aware of any very firm counter to this argument, beyond one of
product stability, which is why milk and fruit & vegetable drinks are kept
outside the system in Figure 4.1 – the remains of perishable products may
certainly degrade while still being stored at the retailer or in the RVM, and
cause odour (and perhaps health) issues. It was also argued for milk in
particular that the product is a staple food and therefore should not be ‘taxed’
by the imposition of a deposit.
Perishables to one side, though, it is not really clear why there should be a
deposit on, for example, canned soft drinks, but not canned snack nuts; on soft
drinks, but not fabric softeners. The only other reasons ERM can imagine are
that keeping the scope to beverage containers makes things easier to
understand for all involved, that the increase in ‘on the go’ consumption and
its impact on littering requires particular focus, and that, if too many products
had a deposit on their packaging, quite a sizeable amount of alternative
infrastructure would be needed to collect it – whether it be RVMs or retailer
collection areas.
4.1.2 Packaging Material
The original scope of the project included glass, plastics and aluminium
containers in the deposits scheme, but excluded cartons, steel containers and
other materials. ERM believes that these choices were largely driven by the
current situation in other European countries that have already implemented
deposits.
The stakeholders’ responses to ERM’s enquiries were clear that any deposit
system would have to avoid any distinctions that might distort trade or
competition between materials. This would suggest that cartons and steel
containers ought be included in the scope of the deposits system.
Cartons are currently not widely recycled, so the introduction of a deposit on

them might well have a favourable effort on their recycling rate. However,
the previous section noted that degradable products such as milk and juices
should probably be excluded from the scope of the scheme, for reasons of
hygiene. In this sense, the Venn diagram is stylised, since it does not indicate
the considerable overlap between the four categories. One option might be to
include all packaging materials in the scheme, with exemptions for certain
products, in whatever packaging they might be sold. This would at least
avoid bias in favour of one material over another.
There is another issue with cartons – and, indeed, any other non-cylindrical
packaging containers – and that is that the RVMs read barcodes by putting the
packages on their side and rotating them about their longitudinal axis. This
works with cylindrical bottles and cans, but will fail for cartons. ERM
anticipates that RVM manufacturers could certainly overcome this issue, but it

46
is a further step that would need to be taken in advance of introducing
deposits on cartons.
The inclusion of disposal cups as a separate material type highlights that these
containers can be a particular issue for littering, and might otherwise be
excluded from the scope of a deposits scheme. One can imagine a deposit
scheme that is solely concerned with this type of packaging, where the cups
can be returned to the shops that sell them, or dedicated RVMs. However,
ERM questions the amount of packaging that could be diverted from landfill
and littering in this way, compared with the level of resources required to
establish and then operate the system. The money involved might be more
efficiently invested in alternative schemes.
4.1.3 Format
By format, ERM means whether the container is intended for a single-trip, or

to be returned and reused (after suitable washing) a number of times. As is
noted elsewhere, the deposit schemes on single-trip containers in other
European countries have typically evolved from systems that originally just
concerned returnable containers.
The restriction of a potential deposits scheme to only cover single trip – as

suggested by the scope of this study – seems to be policy decision, and ERM
does not foresee any undesirable effects arising from it.
4.1.4 Pack Size
Should the size of the pack have any influence on whether that pack is
included in the system? Table 2.3 indicated that the deposits in the studied
European countries vary by material and by pack size. The German deposit
system originally distinguished between sizes of container, but subsequently
changed so that all materials and pack sizes attract the same deposit, for
reasons of simplicity.
Several stakeholders thought that setting different deposits for different pack
sizes might lead to some perverse outcomes. For example, if packs less than a
litre attract a deposit of (say) 20p, and those that are one litre or more have a
deposit of 50p, they imagined that companies might start selling 950ml packs,
to fall under the threshold. However, this has not happened in EU Member
States where deposits currently exist.
One factor that might encourage the imposition of a ceiling on which pack
sizes incur a deposit is that, for RVMs at least, the packaging cannot be
crushed until the deposit has been collected, as the barcode could not be read.
This has impacts on the space requirements for collection (see also
Section 4.3.4) and on transport to the return site.

47
4.1.5 Varying Scales of Deposits
Just as different deposits could be charged on the same product in the same
packaging material but different sized packs, so could changes in the product
or the packaging material lead to different deposits. Stakeholders thought
that differences in deposits between materials could lead to market distortion,
though this does not seem to be an issue in Europe.
A scheme could be imagined where different deposits are placed on drinks

sold in glass containers, perhaps based on their alcoholic content (or just
alcoholic/non-alcoholic). However, this is at odds with the wider point raised
in Section 4.1.1 above, that setting a deposit should not depend on the
container’s contents.
4.1.6 Other Considerations of Scope
Pubs, Clubs and Restaurants
Going beyond the four categories in our Venn diagram, there are other
questions of scope that need to be considered. For example, if there is a
deposit on alcoholic drinks sold in glass containers, such as alcopops, would
pubs, clubs and restaurants have to charge that deposit on drinks sold to
customers on their premises, for consumption (and, ultimately, deposit
redemption) on their premises? In other countries, there is no such
differentiation between packaging for on-sales and off-sales, which could
theoretically lead to customers in pubs buying the products and subsequently
taking them elsewhere to claim the deposit. However, ERM considers that the
effort involved in this activity would barely be worth the reward, and this
seems to be the experience from abroad.
Mandatory or Voluntary?
The stakeholders mostly agreed that, if a national deposit scheme were to be

introduced, it would need to be mandatory – a voluntary system would not
work. The anticipated costs of a deposit scheme are high (see Section 4.4
below), so it was felt that the costs should be shared across the whole
business, rather than volunteers.
Some stakeholders thought there might be scope for voluntary systems run on
a more local basis, as long as they do not raise any trade barriers (see Annex A
for details of the so-called “island solutions” that arose in Germany).
Examples quoted included AG Barr’s scheme for Irn Bru in Scotland, though
that is for reusable packaging. Another voluntary initiative has been trialled
by Tesco, who are offering loyalty points for materials returned to RVMs at
selected stores (see Section 3.8.3). While this is not a deposit scheme, since no
initial charge is levied, it is a voluntary scheme that is encouraging the
recycling of packaging.
Another suggestion was that mandatory deposit schemes might be imposed at

large events, such as sporting occasions, carnivals and music festivals.

48
Stakeholders cited various events already held (including the beer concession
run by the Workers’ Beer Company at the ‘WOMAD’ festival, T in the Park
(where a 10p deposit applied to drink cups sold by ‘Tennents Lager’
‘throughout the site), and at least one of the ‘Party in the Park’ events) where
the organisers had voluntarily imposed packaging deposits on drinks cups
(and possibly other products). The deposits could be redeemed at the original
retailers on site. Stakeholders noted that these schemes appeared to be highly
effective in combating littering of the cups on which deposits had been placed.
This is a good closed system, since the point of sale, point of consumption and
point of redemption are all in the same location, and it is almost inevitable that
littering would be reduced by such a scheme. Anecdotal evidence suggested
that children were proactively asking participants if they could have their
used packaging, for the value of the deposits. This is potentially of some
concern, particularly if they might be given packaging containing unfinished
alcoholic drinks. Such unplanned results would have to be carefully
considered before the Government could take the step to make such deposit
systems mandatory.
4.2 HOW THE SYSTEM MIGHT WORK
If the UK Government were minded to introduce a deposits scheme, this

section explains briefly the main steps that would need to be taken.
Scope
First of all, the Government would need to decide the scope of the deposits
system, taking into consideration the questions raised above. In particular, the
boundaries must be set so that the system does not distort the market, nor
create artificial trade barriers. That the systems have been launched in other
EU Member States suggests that this would be possible, if difficult, and more
information on legal implications and considerations is provided in Section 4.5.
Financials
Secondly, the Government would need to sort out the financial considerations,
which are many and diverse, but include:
• the level at which to set the deposits on each packaging category;
• the basis for levying fees on the producers, and the level of the fees;
• the level of penalties for non-compliance; and
• how non-refunded deposits should be used.
Operation
Some further operational decisions that have to be made in advance of starting

the scheme are discussed in Table 4.1.

49
Table 4.1 Operational Considerations
Aspect Discussion
How will deposit- A unique barcode for the UK might help prevent cross-border issues, but it
containing is expected that an additional label would be required, simply to inform the
packaging be consumer of the presence of a deposit on the item of packaging.
labelled?
What points of Consumers will expect to be able to redeem their deposits at any retailer
return will be made selling deposit-containing packaging, while retailers may prefer to make
available to RVMs available rather than have staff deal with returns. Will consumers
consumers? also be able to redeem deposits at HWRCs, and, if so, will councils wish to
man the collection service, or install RVMs themselves?
How will the The detailed operation of the clearing house (if required – the German
clearing house system does not have one) would need to be decided and agreed with the
operate? relevant stakeholders. For example, would the clearing house have to
approve all products that incur a deposit before those products can be
placed on the market?
The clearing house would have to be able to reconcile all deposits collected
by retailers, and all the deposits they redeem, and make adjustments
according to the total number of deposits redeemed nationally.
The annual costs of operating the clearing house would need to be

reclaimed from the producers.
The Government must decide in the first place how the clearing house will
be established. If not a Government-run enterprise, some form of tendering
process would presumably be required.
Information
Once this is done, the producers would need to be informed of the planned
system, and given adequate time to prepare for the change (again, see
Section 4.5). At the same time, an education program ought be run, so that all
parties, including consumers, understand why the new system is being
introduced, and how to participate.
Having decided on all of the above factors (and probably many other
considerations), the Government will need to enact legislation to lay down the
new deposit scheme. There will then be a transition period, allowing the
stakeholders time to prepare for the changes.
Start-Up
The question of how exactly to start-up the system is rather complex. Until
the day the scheme goes live, no deposit-containing packaging will be on the
shelves. However, it is unrealistic to expect retailers on the night of day zero
to clear all non-deposit-containing products from their shelves and replace
them with deposit-containing products. What will happen instead is that
retailers will begin introducing the deposit-containing packaging as and when
they need to replenish their stocks. It seems reasonable to impose a long-stop
date, after which retailers may only sell deposit-containing products within
the target product ranges.

50
Over the period leading up to day zero, and thereafter, those retailers that
wish to use them will be getting RVMs installed at their premises. They will
also need to set up contracts for hauliers to collect their returned packaging.
Through collective bargaining, it may be possible for retailers to negotiate a
better price for the collection charges, and for hauliers to negotiate a better
price for their materials with the reprocessors. With the help of the central
clearing house, it might also be possible to plan and improve collection
rounds.
4.3 IMPACT ON THE UK’S CURRENT PACKAGING WASTE SYSTEM
4.3.1 Parties Involved
Stakeholders were broadly in agreement that the introduction of deposits

would require the involvement of parties all along the packaging supply
chain, starting with the packaging manufacturers, whose designs might be
impacted by the system, and who would need to label their packaging
correctly. The pack/fillers would need to be involved as well, as their choice
of packaging might be affected by the details of the deposit scheme.
Arguably, the retailers have the most pivotal role in making a deposit scheme
successful. From day 1, they must be well informed about the system, and be
able to inform their customers on how it works. The retailers would be
responsible for collecting the deposits, and reporting to the centralised body
how much deposit money they have collected. This would not be too difficult
for large retailers, but we foresee difficulties with small retailers (corner shops,
for example), who might need to improve their stock control significantly.
The retailers, together with RVMs that may be located on their premises, are
also likely to bear the brunt of the responsibilities for collecting returned
containers and providing refunds. If done manually, the retailers will need to
understand the system fully, in order to know which containers are covered
and what deposit refund is due. They will also need to collect the containers
and arrange for their onward transportation, as required, and report to the
centralised body how many deposits they have refunded.
If deposits are to be refundable at household waste recycling centres

(HWRCs), the local authorities will need to understand the rules as well, for
the same reasons. Furthermore, they will want to know what the deposit
systems plans are going to be, because of the likely impact on their waste
collection services.
In addition to the above consideration, one or more parties along the supply
chain will have to pay a levy to fund the centralised body and the
administration of the deposit scheme. This cost could be shared between
producers, in the same way as the packaging regulations shares the producer
responsibility between activities. Alternatively, the cost could be levied at one
point in the chain, such as at the point of sale, in the knowledge that the

51
retailers would pass the additional cost along the supply chain. In the
European systems reviewed, the usual point of levy for the fees is with the
fillers and importers.
The question of costs is covered in more detail in Section 4.4.
Finally, Government might choose to get involved in the deposit system at

various points in the supply chain. ERM anticipates that, at the least,
Government would want to coordinate public education about the deposit
system, so that a consistent line is presented to consumers about why the
system is being introduced, its scope, and how they should comply.
4.3.2 Impact on Local Authority Collections
Nearly all the stakeholders thought that the deposit scheme will cannibalise
some of the packaging materials that are currently collected by local
authorities in source-separated kerbside collections, bring banks and HWRCs.
Dual collection rounds are expensive, but as mentioned earlier, current
legislation means that all local authorities in England must provide kerbside
collections for at least two recyclable materials by 2010 (1).
The value of the recyclates does not go very far (perhaps around 10%) towards
supporting the costs of collection, and, in the current economic climate,
income is falling; however, it does help. If the tonnages and income decrease,
it will become harder to justify the separate collection rounds. However, it is
unlikely that these rounds could be dropped entirely, because the deposit
system would not divert all packaging items (the scope as defined does not
include jam jars, shampoo bottles or cat food tins, for example), and,
moreover, there will still be a need to collect non-packaging recyclables.
One possibility to limit the loss of revenue to local authorities would be for
them to collect the returned containers from the retailers. LARAC suggested
that RVMs could be located at HWRCs, to further facilitate their involvement.
This would seem to work on first inspection, but the former would require a
whole-scale redesign of collection rounds, while, for collection authorities, the
latter could impact on recycling credits.
Another concern for LARAC was that the removal of a sizable amount of
packaging materials from their recycling stream would make it much harder
to meet their household waste recycling and composting targets, which might
therefore have to be adjusted.
4.3.3 Impact on Retailers
As already noted, the retailers have a pivotal role in making a deposit scheme
successful. The majority of retailers (even small shops) use barcode scanners
(1) The Act gives the National Assembly for Wales the right to pass equivalent regulations for Wales, but (to date) this
has not yet been done.

52
to charge customers, so the cost of the deposits could be coded into this
system and charged to customers relatively easily. However, many retailers
do not collect or use their till data for reporting purposes, so it may be more
difficult for retailers to log how many deposits they have collected.
At the other end of the scheme, retailers will need to record the deposits they
redeem to customers. If this is done by RVMs, the process can be automated,
but manually returned deposits will need to be logged and independently
verified by the logistics/waste management companies.
These factors impinge on the financial operation of the shops, and may slow
down customer service, while deposits are being redeemed. In addition,
retailers will also have to find some storage space for the returned containers.
In comparison with the deposits schemes of old, where a retailer would have
to accept and to store crates of large fizzy drink bottles, today’s beverages are
sold in a very wide range of packaging designs and sizes. The retailer would
need to examine or to scan the packs individually to determine if they qualify,
and, perhaps, the deposit due. The numbers of packages involved now would
be significantly higher than the old system, and, although much would go
back to supermarkets, local shops would at least in theory have to accept and
store a large range of packaging items.
4.3.4 Impact on Consumers
Whilst no consumer surveys were undertaken as part of this study,

stakeholders were consulted regarding the potential impact of introducing
deposits on consumers. Opinions varied on how consumers would view the
introduction of deposits. Several stakeholders thought there would be some
initial enthusiasm for the system, fed in part by nostalgia for the old deposit
system on fizzy drinks bottles, but also by the sense of doing something good
for the environment. This may have been a function of the age of some of
those stakeholders.
Another possible positive foreseen was that, while the cost of the deposits
might be lost in the overall cost of a shopping trip, the separate step of taking
the container to collect a deposit, and the receipt of a voucher or cash to
spend, might be perceived as receiving a gift, even though the deposit was
paid in the first instance. This might leave the consumer with a good feeling
about deposits and recycling more widely, and creates a notional link in the
consumer’s mind between the packaging and its value.
Less optimistic opinions included comments that the system might be

perceived as imposing additional cost on poorer families, and those with
accessibility issues (such as the elderly) who may find it more difficult to take
their containers to a return location in order to redeem their deposit. This is
on the basis that those with a smaller living space (such as in flats) might not
have the physical space necessary to separate their deposit containers from
their non-deposit recyclables and from their residual waste. The space issue is
exacerbated because crushing the packaging may invalidate the deposit – at

53
least from RVMs. To a lesser extent, they are also less likely to have access to
private transport, to get the containers to a refund point (with the alternative
of public transport being much less convenient for the return of any
significant number of containers), and are more likely to reside in areas with
less convenient access to such points. If they are unable to collect the refund,
they are effectively being charged extra money for their products – money
which would be directed back into the system.
Whilst some households would find it relatively easy to participate in a

deposit scheme (eg taking containers back to a supermarket in their own
vehicle as part of a regular shopping trip), ERM considers this generally less
convenient than alternatives such as a regular kerbside collection of the same
materials.
A frequently voiced concern was that the introduction of a deposit system on

anything less than all packaging items of a certain kind would lead to further
confusion among householders. There is already much confusion about why
kerbside collection schemes vary in their scope so much between local
authorities. The introduction on top of that of deposits on these products but
not those will only add to consumers’ confusion and general frustration with
the recycling industry.
4.3.5 Impacts on Litter Arisings and Composition
It is of course difficult to predict how the deposit scheme would affect litter
arisings. We can imagine that there will be a net decrease in litter arisings, not
necessarily so much because the introduction of deposits will persuade those
who drop litter to change this habit; rather, the deposits will encourage others
to go around collecting people’s litter and redeeming the deposits themselves.
If this incentive should provoke those same people to up-end litter bins in
their search for deposit-containing packages, littering may actually get worse.
Then again, if the deposit scheme is working well, consumers would not be
leaving their containers in litter bins, so this would not be an issue. Overall,
ERM suspects that emptying litter bins is likely to be a very small although
admittedly visible side effect.
The litter statistics presented in this report are by count rather than weight,
and therefore swamped by cigarette butts and chewing gum. These items will
continue to dominate litter statistics, until effective measures can be
introduced to stop them being discarded. Whatever the success of deposits
might be in reducing packaging litter, ERM expects that beverage containers
will continue to be a significant part of the remaining litter fraction.
4.3.6 Impacts on Overall Waste Collection and Recycling Rates
All the stakeholders consulted thought that a deposit scheme would achieve
the goal of increasing waste collection and recycling rates. Some thought that
the added complexity would have detrimental effects on other parts of the
recycling system – in particular, kerbside systems – but the general opinion

54
was that recycling would see a net increase. ERM considers that deposit
schemes also have the potential to capture new waste streams for recycling,
including some harder to reach packaging materials which are not currently
collected for recycling on a widespread basis. One example is on-the-go food
and drink packaging, the majority of which is currently disposed of in litter
bins, or on the premises of retail outlets. The big concern raised was whether
an increase in collection and recycling rates via a packaging deposit scheme
could be achieved at a reasonable cost. Several stakeholders proposed
alternative systems and claimed they would meet the same goals at a lower
cost. These alternatives are discussed in Section 4.6.
4.4 POSSIBLE ECONOMIC COSTS OF A DEPOSIT SYSTEM
A full analysis of the possible economic costs of a deposit system was outside
the scope of this study, but ERM inevitably picked up some evidence of
possible costs during the course of the research. For example, the Scottish
Government consultation estimated that a deposit and return scheme in
Scotland would cost around £17 million a year (1).
A presentation (2) by Bernd Sieberger of DPG (Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH –

the German deposit system for disposal drinks packaging) concluded that
compulsory deposits cost around three times as much per container as
household-based collections. Furthermore, it states that operating a
nationwide deposit system for disposable containers alongside a household-
based collection incurs unnecessarily high development and operating costs,
and reports that (up to May 2008) retailers had invested more than €700M
(~£550M), mostly to install RVMs at point of sale.
4.5 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are a number of legal aspects that need to be considered in order to

ensure that the deposit system does not suffer a series of challenges in court.
The UK can learn from the rulings that have already been made in the
European Court of Justice (ECJ). Before summarising what has been found in
this light, a general point can be made about the coexistence of deposits and
the current PRN system.
Any packaging covered under a deposit scheme might have to be excluded

from the existing PRN system. If this is not done, it could be argued that the
measures in total are not proportionate, since producers would be paying
twice for each item of packaging; once for the current compliance costs (costs
of compliance scheme membership, PRNs, etc), and once for the
administration and registration charges associated with the deposit scheme.
A standard defence against this argument is when the change affords
(1) The Scottish Government (2008) The Consultation Paper on Potential Legislative Measures to Implement Zero Waste,
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1056/0063943.pdf [17Oct08 @ 09:52]
(2) http://www.proeurope-congress.com/ws1/Bernd%20Sieberger%20DPG.pdf [23Oct08 @ 11:49]

55
additional protection of the environment, but this may be hard to demonstrate
in this instance.
A number of stakeholders pointed out that the scheme would need to avoid
the introduction of any barriers to trade. Some more precise pointers were
provided with reference to specific ECJ cases, as described below. Because the
text is taken from the rulings themselves, which are written in rather turgid
legal language, a summary is provided at the end of how ERM interprets the
rulings.
In an ECJ case in 2004, (C-309/02) (1), an Austrian company challenged the

German packaging deposits scheme. The ruling concluded that Article 7 of the
Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC (hereafter the Directive)
precludes the replacement of a global system for the collection of packaging
waste with a deposit and return system under three scenarios. The first is
where the new system is not equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining
the objectives of the Directive (in other words, the new deposit scheme must
be as appropriate as the old system for achieving the Directive objectives).
Part of the judgement (points 78-79) insists on the principle of proportionality,
not only as to whether the means employed by the scheme are suitable for
attaining the desired objectives, but also so that those means do not go beyond
what is necessary for that purpose.
The second scenario is where the changeover to the new system does not take
place without a break (ie the change cannot be made if there is a break
between the operation of the two schemes).
The third is where the changeover jeopardises the ability of parties actually to
participate in the new system as soon as it enters into force (all parties must be
able to participate fully from day one).
The ruling also insists that there must be a reasonable transition period, for the
participants to be able to adapt to the new system. This was further
elucidated under ECJ case C-463/01 (2), concerning mineral water. It was
concluded (points 79-81) that a period of six months (between the
announcement that a deposit and return system would be established and its
entry into force) is not sufficient to enable producers of natural mineral water
to adapt their production and their management of non-reusable packaging
waste to the new system, given that the system must be set up at the outset.
In case C-217/99 (3), the obligation to re-label goods as a result of a national

change in legislation was judged to be a barrier to trade because, although it
applies without distinction to domestic and imported products, it makes it
necessary to alter the packaging or labelling of the products for the purpose of
marketing them in the EU Member State concerned. It continued that, even
(1) See http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&numaff=C-309%2F02&Submit=Submit


56
supposing that the extra costs are ultimately borne by consumers, the mere
prospect of having to lay out those costs constitutes a barrier for traders, since
it is capable of acting as a disincentive to those who are contemplating
marketing the products in the EU Member State concerned.
In this light, it is discussed in Section 2.10 that national barcodes might have to
be employed, to limit possible cross-boundary issues. This may force the
importer to alter the packaging of his products on the basis of the place where
they are marketed, and therefore to incur additional packaging and labelling
costs.
Summary of Legal Requirements
• The new deposit scheme must be as appropriate as the old system for
achieving the Directive objectives, and, thereby, proportionate.
• To that end, it may be concluded that an imposition of deposits on certain
types of packaging may necessitate their exclusion from the existing
system, unless a clear environmental benefit can be demonstrated.
• The change cannot be made if there is a break between the operation of
the two schemes.
• All parties must be able to participate fully from day one.
• There must be a transition period (and six months may not be long
enough) to allow parties to prepare for the change.
• Any requirement for re-labelling can be conceived to be a barrier to trade.
Some of these requirements appear to be fairly difficult to overcome. A

reasonable counter-argument is that the deposit schemes continue to exist in
other EU Member States, so it must be possible to introduce a system that is
legally compliant.
4.6 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR INCREASING RECYCLING RATES
Stakeholders suggested a number of alternative options that might achieve the

same desired result of increasing recycling rates. These are discussed in turn
below.
4.6.1 Continue with Voluntary Schemes and RVMs
The first suggestion amounts to a business as usual proposition. The UK is

seeing increasing amounts of waste being recycled from kerbside, as councils
increase the scope of their collection schemes (see also below). Meanwhile,
retailers are introducing RVMs to their stores on a voluntary basis, so that
they are seen as being environmentally responsible. With things moving in
the right direction, is there a need to invest all the money and effort
developing a deposit scheme?

57
4.6.2 Invest in Improving Kerbside Recycling
The principal counter to the above is that things may be moving in the right
direction, but not quickly enough. Several stakeholders reasoned that the best
means of investing to improve matters would be to spend the money
improving kerbside collection routines, so that more residents are offered the
opportunity to recycle more materials.
An article on the website of Highland Council (1) reports that the quantity of
plastic bottles collected for recycling has more than doubled since 2004, and
that 13.9 million households can now participate in kerbside recycling
collections that include plastic bottles. Figure 3.6 presented a compelling
correlation between households served by plastic kerbside collection schemes
and the tonnage of plastic bottles recycled. These statistics are supported by
data from Defra, which show a rapid increase in plastic and co-mingled
tonnages collected over the past seven years (see Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 The Rates of Plastic and Co-Mingled Recycling in the UK
60 1200
50 1000
Co-mingled Recycling / 000 tonnes

Plastic Recycling / 000 tonnes
40 800
Plastics
30 600
Co-mingled
20 400
10 200
0 0
2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/7
Year
Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/archive/mwb200607b.xls

offers a relatively cost-effective means of continuing the trend of improving
(1) http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/news/newsreleases/2008/July/2008-07-09-01.htm [17Oct08 @ 12:57]

58
4.6.3 Separate Targets for Household and Commercial Waste
The next three alternatives build on the existing PRN system. As noted in
Section 3.10, a few stakeholders observed that, if the recycling and recovery
targets do not continue to rise year on year, a point will come where all the
necessary infrastructure is in place, and the recycling and recovery required to
hit national targets will occur without any push from the producers. At this
point, the value of PRNs will collapse.
One way to keep demand for PRNs ahead of supply, and therefore to continue
to stimulate investment in infrastructure, would be to set separate targets for
household and commercial packaging waste. Instead of just having steel
PRNs, there would be household steel PRNs and commercial steel PRNs.
In the first instance, Government would need to determine the current split of
PRNs (by material) between household and commercial packaging waste, and
this would set the baseline for the new system. Government would then need
to look at what levels of recycling and recovery it wanted to see going forward
in household and commercial packaging (by material), and these would
become the PRN targets for future years.
In order to comply with the new targets, producers would need to split their
data returns by household/business customer, as would the reprocessors. A
number of advantages and disadvantages have been determined for this
proposal, as detailed in Table 4.2. In summary, a number of the required goals
would be achieved through this proposal, but there would be significant
difficulties in correctly accounting for household versus commercial
packaging, for producers, for reprocessors, and for Regulators.
Table 4.2 Assessment of Separate Household and Commercial Waste Targets
• Would stimulate increased demand for • Very difficult for producers to quantify
household packaging collections household and commercial end use separately
• Would keep local authorities in control • Very difficult for reprocessor to identify
of collections correctly material from household and
commercial sources, to issue correct type of
• Enables local authorities to benefit from PRN
increased PRN funding through higher
household material values • May require a more unified collection
infrastructure to deliver required tonnages
• Schemes/producers incentivised to (and economies of scale)
work more closely with local authorities
• System open to misreporting or fraud
• Would encourage economies and
increased efficiencies in household • Not all local authorities would benefit if
collections because of market forces increased PRN funding came through
material value, depending on contractual
• Increased demand may encourage local arrangements with service providers
authorities to increase materials
collected • Difficult for Regulators to enforce/police
provenance of material

59
4.6.4 Separate Targets for Primary versus Secondary/Tertiary Packaging
A variation on the above proposal splits the packaging waste streams not by
point of arising (household versus business) but by packaging class – primary
packaging versus secondary/tertiary packaging, as follows.
• Primary packaging surrounds the product and is usually taken home by
the consumer (eg toothpaste tube).
• Secondary packaging is display packaging (also called grouped
packaging) usually left at the store (eg tray in which
the tubes sit).
• Tertiary packaging is the transit packaging used to protect the product
during delivery to the shop (eg cartons, pallets and
pallet wrap).
Most of the time, it is relatively easy to determine into which category each
item of packaging falls, so it is possible for producers to quantify their
packaging use, and for reprocessors to estimate the packaging they handle,
according to these categories. The Regulator’s job is also simplified, by the
same means.
Some difficulties remain with this classification, however. Most notably,

whether an item of packaging is actually primary packaging or
secondary/tertiary packaging can depend on the supply chain involved. To
give a simple example, wine from corner shops is sold by the bottle, while
wine from some merchants is only sold by the case – meaning the transit
packaging is primary packaging. Between those two extremes, supermarkets
usually sell wine by the bottle, but run promotions encouraging customers to
buy cases. Although the intended use of the packaging might be clear (eg the
carton for wine is tertiary packaging), the way it is sold may vary.
4.6.5 Separate Targets for Specific Material Types
The second variation on this theme separates the targets by sub-classifications

of material or packaging type, with the categories chosen to allow the
Government to increase focus on the items of interest in the packaging waste
stream. Likely choices for separate targets could include:
• bottle polymers for plastics eg PET, HDPE;
• drinks cans for aluminium;
• food and drink cans for steel;
• flat carton board for paper; and
• multi-layer cartons.
Glass is unlikely to need separate targets, as it arises mainly in household

waste anyway, and increases in overall targets would have the same effect.

60
As with the previous systems, producers would need to report their
packaging producer responsibilities in the same categories, as would the
reprocessors, and a number of advantages and disadvantages have been
determined, as detailed in Table 4.3. In summary, this system would also
achieve the required goals of deposits, while significantly reducing the
difficulties highlighted with the household/business differentiation.
However, targets for different polymers may cause producers to change their
material choice.
Table 4.3 Assessment of Separate Targets for Specific Material Types
• Similar benefits to household/commercial • Does not focus exclusively on household
and industrial differentiation (see Table 4.2) collections
but without the disadvantages of data
complexity • Further work required to identify funding
passing to local authorities, but improved
• Much more straightforward for producers to reporting requirements may help with this
classify by material than destination
• May require a more unified collection
• Easier for reprocessors to identify material infrastructure to deliver required tonnages
types (and economies of scale)
• Less open to mis-reporting and fraud • Not all local authorities would benefit if
increased PRN funding came through
• Able to set defined, tight targets material value, depending on contractual
arrangements with service providers
• Could be a mechanism to start the market
for ‘difficult’ materials • Difficult for Regulators to enforce/police
provenance of material
• Possible perverse outcomes, whereby

certain types are discontinued
Additional PRN Considerations
Recoup provided some further thoughts on the current PRN system. As

things stand, the money raised through PRNs goes to the reprocessors, and
should be used to invest in new reprocessing technology. A number of such
companies are currently investing in new equipment, so it could be argued
that this process is working (although some would question whether the
revenue raised matches the sums spent). However, at least for the recycling of
plastic packaging, it is not the reprocessing capacity that is the bottle neck, but
collection and sorting.
Recoup agrees that PRN targets should continue to grow, and is interested in
the idea of changing the form of the targets in some way, as outlined above
(with certain reservations already included in the text). However, it suggests
that the revenue from PRNs should be distributed across the waste
management chain, with (for instance) 40% of revenue going to collection,
20% to sorting and 40% to reprocessing.

61
A few stakeholders raised concerns about the current system of protocols,
which allow certain reprocessors to issue PRNs calculated as a percentage of
their throughput, without the need to demonstrate the actual level of
packaging handled. It is understood that the reprocessors may not be able to
measure the amount of packaging in every delivery of waste materials that
they receive, but it is also thought that the percentages set in the protocols
may not reflect current practice.
4.6.6 Targets Based on Carbon
A more radical option raised by stakeholders involved changing the metric by

which the targets are set from weight, which is obvious and easy to measure,
to carbon, which is arguably a much better indicator of environmental impact.
At first glance, this sounds like it would improve the legislation, by relating
the targets to a proxy (carbon) for a known environmental issue – global
warming potential (GWP). However, further investigation reveals a number
of difficulties, set out below.
• The science underpinning this metric is still very much in development.
The carbon impact from producing a steel can in one factory could be
quite different to that from another factory.
• Changing from weight-based targets to carbon-based targets could cause
a step change in the levels of the targets, if the materials are to be equally
targeted based upon their carbon impacts. For instance, the target for
plastic recycling is currently much lower than many of the other
materials, but its carbon impacts may be significant.
• If it were decided to set the carbon targets by material and start them from
their current levels (which would be a means to avoid the above issue),
there would need to be a fairly quick ramping of targets to a more
consistent carbon target, otherwise there would be no point in using
carbon as the indicator.
• Setting targets based on carbon, a proxy for GWP, ignores the other
environmental impacts of materials. Global warming is the current hot
topic, but other issues (such as resource depletion) may become as
significant in years to come.
4.6.7 Recovery of Recyclates from Litter Bins
A final suggestion to increase recycling and recovery rates concerns the fate of
waste in litter bins. This waste is currently collected and sent straight to
landfill, but it could equally be sent to a ‘dirty MRF’ (a MRF designed not to
receive just source-separate recyclates) and sorted, to remove recyclates. The
MRF would need to be able to deal with recyclates that are mixed with food
and other waste typically deposited in litter bins, but it was suggested that
there might be quite a large fraction of recyclable material in the bins.

62
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report seeks to examine the features of packaging deposit systems and
the role they might play in increasing recovery and recycling of single-use
drink containers (plastic, aluminium and glass) in the UK. Box 1.1 introduced
the key questions that the study should attempt to address, and ERM’s
conclusions on those questions are as follows:
Would a deposit system lead to increased collection and/or improve the

quality of the materials collected?
Yes. The general consensus is that a deposit system would increase the
total tonnages of materials collected, although a significant amount of the
deposited packaging would be cannibalised from existing collection
schemes. However, a deposit scheme may also capture some of the hard to
reach materials – particularly ‘on the go’ food and drink packaging. There
was less agreement about whether or not there would be a concurrent
improvement in the quality of materials collected.
What role might reverse-vending play in a deposit scheme or as an

alternative? Could reverse vending alone provide a similar or better outcome?
Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) would play an important role in any
deposit scheme, freeing retailers, to some extent, from the burdens of
redeeming deposits. RVM trials in the UK have proved popular with the
public, and RVMs in shopping areas could divert recyclates from waste
bins. Whether RVMs would reduce littering is disputed.
What would be the likely effect on local authority collections/existing

collection mechanisms?
There was widespread agreement that the introduction of deposits would
have a detrimental effect on existing collection mechanisms in general, and
council kerbside collections in particular. Deposits on only a proportion of
packaging materials may add to the householder confusion over the
varying scope of local authority services, which has been widely reported
by stakeholders, this may be a disincentive to participation. The deposit
scheme would also divert a significant amount of packaging waste from
the kerbside schemes, and that may have a knock-on effect on other
materials currently collected at kerbside.
What are the pre-conditions for success of a deposit scheme?

Box 2.2 provides details on some of the things that need to be in place
before a deposit scheme can be launched. In brief: the centralised body
would need to have been established; all the producers and importers
must have registered and labelled their products, and paid the associated
fees; the retailers must have some form of collection system in place;
hauliers and reprocessors must be set to receive the returned packaging
through the new channels; and consumers must be informed about the
new system.

63
What are the likely costs (including administrative and operational costs)?
Are there likely to be less costly alternatives to increasing recycling?
Although this question was included in the brief, it was also recognised by
Defra that an economic study of deposits was outside the terms of
reference. To give one general ballpark assessment of costs, the German
deposit scheme acknowledged that compulsory deposits cost around three
times as much per container as household-based collection systems.
A number of alternative means of increasing recycling were put forward,
and are summarised below.
What information is there on industry evidence on deposit schemes?

To ERM’s knowledge, there are no deposit schemes in the UK currently
handling single-trip packaging, with the exception of voluntary schemes
run at events such as music festivals. The ring-fenced nature of these
occasions makes it more simple for the organisers to impose the deposits
and to redeem them. Testimonials on such systems suggest that they work
very well, and help to reduce littering – though often the collection and
return is done by entrepreneurial members of the public.
Tesco reports that their voluntary RVMs, awarding loyalty points for
returned packaging, have been well received by customers, but are very
expensive.
What information - if any - is there on the effects of deposits schemes on

littering?
ERM has found little hard evidence that deposit schemes reduce littering.
One exception is a recent nature clean-up lead by the Danish Society for
Nature Conservation, which collected 154 389 cans, of which only 7989
(5%) were deposit-bearing cans. The rest were foreign cans that were not
The Tesco RVM scheme did prompt one couple to trawl their
neighbourhood for litter, earning them enough air miles to fly business
class home from America. However, other stakeholders suggested a
national scheme might prompt people to up-end litter bins in their search
for deposit-containing packaging. If the deposit scheme is working,
though, that packaging will not be there.
Would certain drinks categories, producers or packaging systems be

discriminated against or favoured by a deposit scheme?
Possibly to some extent. General stakeholder opinion was that, unless the
deposit scheme is introduced uniformly over all packaging systems,
manufacturers might change their choice of packaging to get around the
rules. As a simple example, if the scheme covered glass, aluminium and
plastic (as suggested in the scope of this project), PepsiCo, who use
(predominantly) steel cans, might be said to have an advantage over Coca
Cola, who use (predominantly) aluminium cans.
However, representatives of national deposit schemes in some of the other
European countries were only aware of few examples where this had
obviously been the reason for the substitution of one packaging material

64
with another. Their opinion was that consumer preferences had a
significantly higher influence on packaging material choice than whether
the material was part of a deposit scheme or not.
Would this have any effect on the market for containers which can be refilled
(or the likelihood of such a market taking off)?
ERM has found no evidence that introducing deposits for single-trip
containers might increase the market for refillable containers. On the
contrary, evidence from the other European countries shows that the use of
refillable beverage packaging is in decline. However, representatives of
European deposit schemes suggested that this fall is due to costs and
practicalities (eg the need for bottle cleaning facilities at the bottler is
eliminated, and the need for collecting the empty bottles is in most cases
no longer the responsibility of the brewery) and consumer preferences
(consumers prefer single use bottles rather than scuffed refillable bottles).
The fact that deposits on single-use beverage packaging had been
introduced had, in their opinion, had little or no influence on this trend.
Are the conclusions on benefits and disadvantages different for each material?
Might deposit schemes encourage packaging producers to substitute one
material for another?
ERM considers that the benefits and disadvantages of a deposit scheme are
the same for each material. However, as noted above, unless the scheme is
introduced uniformly across all materials, some market distortion is likely.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS TO ACHIEVE INCREASED RECYCLING
Seven alternative suggestions that could achieve increased recycling are

discussed in the report, and the ideas range in complexity. At one end, it is
suggested that the UK could simply continue with voluntary schemes and
RVMs – business as usual. With things moving in the right direction, is there
a need to invest all the money and effort developing a deposit scheme?
A simple step beyond this would be to try to recover materials from litter bins,
sending their contents through dirty MRFs. This is relatively straightforward
in concept, but might have some operational issues – not least that local
authorities and the waste industry have moved away from dirty MRFs,
although separation technologies are frequently an important part of
mechanical biological treatment (MBT) systems.
The most popular alternative suggestion for boosting recycling is to invest

money in expanding coverage of kerbside collection scheme. The
infrastructure is already quite well developed, and the public are familiar with
what is required of them. Figure 5.1 shows that plastic bottle recycling has
grown in line with the growth in coverage of households served by kerbside
plastic collection.

65
Figure 5.1 Correlation Between Plastic Bottle Recycling Levels and Households Served
200,000 16
175,000 14

Plastic Bottles Recycled / tonnes 150,000 12
125,000 10
Combined
Kerbside
100,000 8
Bring
Households
75,000 6
50,000 4
25,000 2
0 0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year


offers a relatively cost effective means of continuing the trend of improving
Possibly in combination with the above, a number of suggestions were made

on how the PRN system could be adapted and improved, all of which
involved setting more specific targets. The first suggestion is to set separate
targets for household and commercial packaging waste. Instead of just having
steel PRNs, there would be household steel PRNs and commercial steel PRNs.
A number of the required goals would be achieved through this proposal, but
there would be difficulties in correctly accounting for household versus
commercial packaging, for producers, for reprocessors, and for Regulators.
A variation on this proposal splits the packaging waste streams not by point
of arising (household versus business) but by packaging class – primary
packaging versus secondary/tertiary packaging. This resolves some of the
issues, but some difficulties remain with this classification. Most notably,
whether an item of packaging is actually primary packaging or
secondary/tertiary packaging can depend on the supply chain involved.

66
The second variation on this theme separates the targets by sub-classifications
of material or packaging type, with the categories chosen to allow the
Government to increase focus on the items of interest in the packaging waste
stream. Possible choices for separate targets could include by plastic polymer,
or by plastic bottle versus other plastic packaging. This system would also
achieve the required goals of deposits, while significantly reducing the
difficulties highlighted with the household/business differentiation.
However, targets for different polymers may cause producers to change their
material choice.
For plastic in particular, Recoup suggested that the value of the PRN should
not all go to the reprocessor, but be split between collection, sorting and
reprocessing, since it is not the reprocessing capacity that is the bottle neck,
but collection and sorting.
A few stakeholders raised concerns about the current system of protocols, and
suggested that, if they persist, there should be a re-evaluation of their values.
The most radical alternative raised by stakeholders involved changing the

metric by which the targets are set from weight, which is obvious and easy to
measure, to carbon, which is arguably a much better indicator of
environmental impact. The reasons behind this change are relatively clear,
but the general opinion is that the science is not yet well enough developed.
5.2 SUMMARY
ERM would make the following closing comments on the study.

• It is not disputed that a deposit scheme would increase recycling, but
alternative schemes could achieve the same or better results at a lower
cost.
• Deposits could be seen to impose an additional cost to householders who
are not easily able to participate.
• It is likely that the majority of materials collected through a deposit
scheme would be diverted from the existing household collection
schemes, rather than being new material that is not currently collected.
• Deposits would require the development of a new tranche of
infrastructure to collect and store the packaging at retailers, while
reducing the usage of the existing kerbside collection infrastructure.
• Deposits may make a contribution to reducing litter, but, for ‘on the go’
packaging, it is thought that the major impact would be to divert
packaging from waste bins to recycling bins.
• A deposit scheme would have to be carefully designed, in order not to fall
foul of legal requirements to be proportionate and non-discriminatory,
and in order not to encourage producers to change their choice of
packaging material.

67
If Defra decided against introducing a deposit scheme, the report has
highlighted alternative schemes that might achieve the same goal of
increasing recycling and recovery of packaging waste. ERM makes two
suggestions on this matter:
• Further funds could be invested in kerbside collection infrastructure.
Households are increasingly familiar with these schemes, and much of the
infrastructure required is already in place.
• Those funds could be provided, at least in part, by changes to the PRN
system, in which more specific targets are stipulated. A further study or
consultation might investigate the detail of this proposal. Of the
suggestions listed, it might be that splitting targets according to primary,
secondary and tertiary packaging might be the least problematic, but
none of the ideas is without its own complications.
Finally, voluntary schemes at large events have proved highly effective in

combating littering of the cups on which deposits had been placed. ERM
would not suggest that such schemes be made mandatory, but their
implementation could certainly be promoted to organisers, and perhaps made
a condition by local authorities granting approval for the events to proceed.
ERM
December 2008

68
Annex A
Review of Member State

Experience
A1 REVIEW OF MEMBER STATE EXPERIENCE
This Annex presents information gathered from Member States, detailing their
experiences of packaging deposit systems. The Annex is divided into four
sections, associated with the four countries reviewed:
• Denmark
• Germany
• Sweden
• Netherlands

A1
A2 DENMARK
Table A2.1 The Danish Deposit and Vending System (with focus on one-way packaging)
Aspect Description
Name of scheme Det danske retursystem (the Danish deposit and refund scheme).
Date of introduction The current Danish deposit and refund scheme was introduced in 2002 with the introduction of one-way packaging for beer and soft
/ changes in recent drinks on the Danish market. Up until 2002, beer and carbonated soft drinks were required by Danish law to be marketed in refillable
years packaging only (often referred to as the can ban). However, as a consequence of EU infringement proceedings against Denmark, the
Danish government decided to drop this requirement.
Prior to the current deposit and refund scheme, schemes for refillable packaging were run by the breweries themselves operating
similarly to the current system for refillable packaging.
The current Danish scheme is regulated by the Statutory Order on Deposits and Collection etc of Packaging for Beer and Certain Soft
Drinks, which has undergone several amendments over the years – the latest being in June of this year.
Statutory Order on Deposits and - set out the detail of the new requirements for a unified deposit and collection system for
Collection etc of Packaging for Beer beer, carbonated water and carbonated soft drinks;
and Certain Soft Drinks, Order No. - took account of the lifting of the can ban; and
713 of 24 August 2002. - removed the requirement for Danish producers to market beer and carbonated soft drinks
in refillable bottles only.
Subsequently amended by:
Order No. 70 of 9 February 2004 - reduced the deposit paid on the packaging.
Order No. 165 of 16 March 2005 - expanded the scope to alcopops, cider and energy drinks.
Environmental Protection Act, Act - gave Told & Skat, the Danish equivalent to the Inland Revenue, the power to confiscate any
No. 325 of 18 May 2005 beer, soft drinks etc sold in Danish shops that do not comply with the deposit rules.
Order No. 663 of 24 June 2005 - introduced the opportunity for sales locations to legalise any confiscated products.
Order No. 113 of 1 February 2007 - consolidated superseded Order No. 713/2002 and its amendments;
- introduced a security code as part of the label. The security code consists of five dots
printed with a special ink combination and specific spacing between the dots;
- tightened up the requirements to registration. Packaging must now be registered prior to
import; and
- postponed the deadline for achieving 95% return rate on non-refillable containers.
Aspect Description
Order No. 326 of 24 April 2008 - consolidated superseded Order No. 113/2207;
- expanded the scope to non-carbonated drinks such as mineral water, ice tea, and lemonade;
- introduced the requirement that sales locations need to hold a certain quantity of packaging
before collection by Dansk Retursystem;
- provided for retailers to receive an allowance for handling non-refillables (similar to
refillables); and
- allowed Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS) more flexibility in how it uses unredeemed
deposits.
Order No. 634 of 19 June 2008 - extends the monopoly of DRS to operate the Danish deposit and refund scheme until 2013.
Packaging materials All cans and bottles that contain:
covered by the • beer;
scheme • carbonated drinks with alcohol content of 0.5% volume or less (eg sparkling water, soft drinks);
• other fermented products other than beer, wine and fruit wine with alcohol content of 10% volume or less (eg cider);
• mixed products based on spirits, wine and other fermented beverages that are mixed with soft drink, cider, cocoa, or juice, with
an alcohol content between 0.5% and 10% volume;
• mineral water (with and without flavour), lemonade, ice tea and other ready-to-drink and non-carbonated drinks (these products
will be fully included in the scheme by 1 December 2008. Until then some products will include a deposit, others will not).
Deposits apply to both refillable and non-refillable packaging.
Packaging materials The following drinks are excluded: fruit squash/cordial, juice, milk, cocoa, wine and spirits.
not covered by the The following packaging materials are excluded: beverage cartons, plastic containers used with water dispensers, and beverage
scheme packaging over 20 litres.
Juice, milk etc are excluded mainly for hygiene reasons; the RVMs are often positioned near the in-store bakery or other food
departments and the storage of packaging with potential bacteria growth nearby would not be allowed.
Wine and spirits bottles are not generally considered an environmental problem, and the wine producers and importers have not
expressed any interest in being part of the deposit scheme. Presently wine and spirits bottles are collected through glass bring banks,
RVMs and from bars and restaurants. A study commissioned by the Danish EPA in 2000 found that the collection rate in 1998 was
68% of which approximately half was cleaned and reused either in Denmark or abroad and half was crushing and used as cullet in
container glass manufacture. The study compared the environmental impacts of collecting the bottles and reusing them or crushing
them and remelting them (a deposit scheme was not considered). Note, the Co-Op operates its own deposit and refund scheme on
wine bottles.
Crates are not regulated by the deposit scheme. Instead these are covered by an agreement between the retail industry and the
breweries. In practice this means that the retailer must accept crates of the same type that it sells.
Voluntary or Mandatory
mandatory system
Aspect Description
Criticism of the During the establishment of the Danish deposit and refund scheme, Carlsberg’s influence Danish scheme was heavily criticised. The
scheme argument was that Carlsberg, through its share majority in DRS, would be able to access confidential sales data about its (foreign)
competitors and thereby seek to exclude them from the market. Confidential data is handled under strict procedures in DRS and to
date no cases of Carlsberg or other interested parties having gained access to this information have been confirmed.
With regard to concerns over any restrictions on imports due to the operation of the scheme or Carlsberg’s involvement in
establishing DRS, the following developments have been seen in the time period 2002 to 2006 (note, not exclusive to one-way
packaging):
- the quantity of imported beer has increased from 4 million litres to 13 million litres;
- the number of producers and importers increased from 269 to 343;
- the quantity of products (EAN numbers) increased from 2,050 to 4,918.
Criticism was also raised of the monopoly granted to DRS which was considered by some to distort competition. Under a recent
review of the system, carried out by PwC, DRS was found to be cost-effective and it was recommended that the Danish deposit
scheme should continue in its current format.
Level(s) of deposit The deposit is determined by the material and the volume. For one-way packaging, the different types of deposit are:
levied
Before 12 Feb 2004 Since 12 Feb 2004
Type A Cans, glass and plastic bottles under 1 litre DKK 1.50 (~ 11 pence) DKK 1.00 (~11 pence)
Type B Plastic bottles of 0.5 litre DKK 2.50 (~ 27 pence) DKK 1.50 (~16 pence)
Type C Cans, glass and plastic bottles of 1 litre or more DKK 4.25 (~ 45 pence) DKK 3.00 (~32 pence)
Type of collection Reverse vending machines (RVMs) and (in small outlets) manually.
systems
Role of retailers, Suppliers must register with DRS if they wish to sell beverage products that are included in the scope of the Danish deposit and
beverage return system. Suppliers are defined as producers, importers, and distributors marketing beverage products on which deposits are
manufacturers, local payable on the Danish market. In order for DRS to administer the individual packaging, the product must also be registered with the
authorities scheme before it can be sold on the Danish market. The registration fee is DKK 2,000 (~ £212) per packaging, payable upon first
packaging registration in a calendar year. When registering new packaging, applicants must consider how the packaging will be
labelled as deposit refundable. There are two options: direct printing onto the packaging or onto the original product label; or self-
adhesive deposit labels.
Sales locations (supermarkets, grocery stores, kiosks, hotels, restaurants, catering, and other outlets) selling beverage in refundable
packaging must register with DRS. This ensures free collection of non-refillable packaging. Registration is free of charge. Temporary
outlets such as music festivals, sports tournaments can also seek registration. All sales locations selling beverage in refundable
packaging have a duty to take the empty packaging back and pay a refund.
Importers, suppliers/distributors and producers must pay a deposit fee to DRS. The value of the fee is based on the sales volumes
from the previous year and predicted sales for the year ahead. The importers, suppliers/distributors and producers report data to an
independent accounting firm which sends summary reports to DRS. DRS then invoices importers, suppliers/distributors and
producers accordingly. For non-refillable packaging where the deposit label is printed directly on the packaging, sales volume
reporting must be done every four weeks. For packaging where adhesive deposit labels are used, different options of reporting are
available: Suppliers/distributors must report every four weeks; whereas importers and producers can choose to report every four
weeks, yearly or not at all. Payment is made in advance. For the parties that are reporting, actual sales are checked against predicted
sales and the deposit fees are corrected
Aspect Description
Importer /
producer / Sales location Consumer
supplier
Collection by
contractor
Dansk For
Container flows Retursystem recycling
Deposit and refund flows (DRS)
DRS income and expenses
Importers and producers must pay a logistics and collection fee to DRS (see Table 1.2 to 1.4). The logistic fee is set according to the
type of material and the volume and covers administrative overheads and efficiency improvements in grocery stores. Thus, logistics
fees are only paid for sales to the grocery trade. The collection fee, which can vary depending on the volume of the packaging, covers
the cost of collecting the packaging.
Local authorities do not play any role in the Danish deposit and refund scheme.
Mechanisms for Repayments to sales locations of deposits paid on non-refillable packaging are handled exclusively by DRS.
reimbursing deposit Deposit refunds are paid to sales locations when the empty packaging has been tallied up at one of DRS’s two terminals. Packaging
to retailers that has been returned via RVMs does not require counting as it is registered in the machine and information is sent to DRS
electronically.
Mechanisms for Reverse vending machines (RVMs) are the main option for returning packaging. These are generally placed by the entrance of the
reimbursing deposit store, but can also be place elsewhere on the premises, and are built into the wall. The cans and bottles are laid one by one on a
to consumers conveyor belt in a ‘hole’ in the machine that takes the packaging through to the sorting area the other side while at the same time
scanning the packaging (the RVM used to recognise the packaging based on the shape and the barcode. Now, more and more RVMs
recognise the packaging based on the barcode and the recently introduced security code. The transition period for moving to security
code has been extended to end 2009). Full crates can be placed through a different ‘hole’. Rejected containers are returned out of the
machine. After loading the packaging into the RVM, the consumer presses a button indicating that they have finished loading and
the machine generates a refund slip which the consumer can redeem in the shop. A purchase is not required.
If a manual system is operated, the consumer will take the empty cans and bottles to staff who checks the labelling and a refund is
given.
Stores with RVMs must accept all types of one-way packaging with the Danish deposit label. Stores without RVMs that sell drinks
must accept types of packaging materials if they sell these materials (eg cans for cans, plastic for plastic etc).
To be eligible for a refund, the packaging must be marked with the deposit label, an EAN number and a two-digit code allocated by
DRS. The packaging must be whole and undamaged so that the container can rotate and the barcodes can be read electronically in
the RVMs.
Aspect Description
Geographical areas Nationwide.
covered
Storage and Larger stores will have compactors for plastic bottles and cans. The compactor will be lined with a plastic bag into which the bottles
handling of collectedand cans are dropped from the conveyor belt. When the bag is full the content with be compacted and the bag will be removed
packaging manually from the compactor. In stores without compactors, the plastic bottles and cans are also dropped into large plastic bags, the
content is however not compacted.
Glass bottles are taken via the conveyor belt to a sorting table, where the bottles are sorted manually. The glass bottles are then either
packed in smaller plastic bags or, for stores handling large quantities of non-refillable glass bottles, stacked onto half and full pallet
containers.
The bags are made from recycled plastic. The bags and pallets are ordered from DRS along with closures, security seals, barcodes etc.
On-ward shipping of The store will contact DRS to arrange collection. Larger stores may have regular collection, many have collection on a need-to basis.
waste packaging to The waste packaging is collected by a haulier. The haulier is selected by DRS through a tendering process (the contract is generally
recyclers for a two year period).
The waste packaging is taken to one of DRS’s two counting stations where the sending location of every sack and pallet is recorded.
The packaging is then fed through a counting machine before being compacted. Counting is not necessary for cans and plastic bottles
compacted in the RVM as it will have registered the quantity and type of packaging for each bag.
DRS arranges deals with recyclers for the recycling of the waste packaging. These contracts are based both on price and
environmental considerations. The recyclers collect the waste packaging as and when appropriate quantities are available for
collection.
Links with other Stores can choose to accept cans and bottles not covered by the Danish deposit and refund scheme. DRS does not charge to collect
non-deposit this packaging from registered stores, surplus deposits are used to cover the expense of this.
packaging collection Kerbside collection of non-deposit bearing cans, plastic, glass and paper / board. Bring schemes in the form of civic amenity sites as
systems and local well as bottle banks are also available. There are no link between these systems and the deposit and refund scheme.
authority collection
systems
Consumer Regular campaigns are run on TV, radio and written media. The campaigns focus on the environmental benefits of recycling as well
information issues as the fact that the consumer gets his/her deposit back (ie the cost implications to each individual consumer).
The legislation allows for surplus deposits to be used, amongst others, on information campaigns to help improve environmental
awareness and increase the return rate.
No problems have been registered with consumer understanding of the reasoning behind the scheme nor the operation of the RVMs.
The main issue identified has been that old habits die hard in that Danes, due to the can ban, have been used to cans (bought on trips
to Germany) not being deposit-bearing. This has been identified as one of the reasons why the return rate for cans is still relatively
low.
Administration of Dansk Retursystem A/S (DRS), a private non-profit organisation, with exclusive rights to operate the Danish deposit and return
the scheme system. Initially this right was to terminate at the end of 2008 but has been extended based on findings from an independent review
(including cost) of the scheme.
Aspect Description
Broader financing As a non-profit organisation, DRS is financed by fees paid by importers and producers for the beverages they sell on the Danish
issues market. To accommodate this, fees are adjusted on an annual basis. The calculations are based on the importers and producers’
registered sales volumes in the previous year, together with their forecasts for sales volumes for the year ahead. The fees charged,
and the actual overheads covered by the fees are required to balance over a six-year period from 2002 to 2008.
The fees that finance the Danish scheme cover logistics and collection. Logistics fees cover administrative overheads, handling fees
and efficiency improvements in grocery stores. Collection fees cover the costs associated with collection and counting one-way
packaging.
Key financial figures for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 (DKK 1,000):
2004 (actual) 2005 (estimated) 2006 (budgeted)
Net turnover 223,000 385,000 511,000
Logistics fees 96,343 104,000 96,000
Deposit turnover 97,656 222,000 334,000
Collection fees 20,194 44,000 66,000
Other income (eg material sale) 8,805 15,000 15,000
Profit on core activities -7,932 -7,000 0
Direct costs to the retailer includes the purchase of any RVMs (the camera and computer inside the RVM is provided by DRS),
compactor, glass bottle sorting table (partly funded by DRS), floor space and staff.
Financial support is provided to stores in the form of a handling allowance/subsidy (see also Table 1.5 at end of document). For
shops that take back more than 50 packaging containers per day it is worthwhile to join the handling subsidy scheme. The
annual cost to the shop is DKK 500 (~ £53). The allowance is paid per container and varies according to container type, in-store
equipment (ie RVMs, compactors), and whether the store has received subsidies under the efficiency improvement programme.
These subsidies are provided to stores in order to optimise the “bottle room” with regard to equipment and lay-out. The first
such programmes ran in the period 2003 to 2006. A new programme is to start in the autumn of 2008.
In 2006, the Danish Environment Ministry commissioned a study, which found that the Danish deposit and refund scheme costs
DKK 0.55 (~ 0.06 pence) per packaging container. If unredeemed deposits were included, the cost was DKK 0.382 (~ 0.04 pence).
One of the conclusions was that the amount will be reduced in the future through the expansion of the scheme. Despite often
voiced concerns over the costs involved, the study also found general satisfaction with the scheme by all parties involved, from
producers and importers, to retailers and consumers.
Impact on quality of No information (deposit and refund schemes have run in Denmark for many years).
collected waste
materials
Impact on collection No before and after collection rates available (the requirement for Danish producers to market beer and carbonated soft drinks only in
rates refillable bottles was lifted in 2002, at the same time as the deposit and refund scheme was established for one-way packaging).
The return rate target, as laid down in legislation, is: 95% (for one-way packaging). Order No. 326/2008 postponed the deadline
(once again) to 1 January 2013. The deadline was 1 October 2004, and was first postponed until 1 October 2005, then 1 January 2008.
Actual return rates for one-way packaging:
2005 2006 2007

Aspect Description
Metal 83% 84% 84%
Plastic 88% 88% 93%
Glass 83% 87% 91%
Total 84% 86% 87%
The return rates are calculated for the whole country. DRS estimates that collection rates are higher in urban areas than in the
country-side.
Approximately 300 million cans are sold under the deposit scheme annually. Of these, 42 million cans are not returned. Reasons
given for the target not having been met are that the one-way packaging market has not grown as rapidly as forecast in the Statutory
Order and that consumers may not be used to having to return cans yet. There are on-going (although as far as understood not yet
legislative) discussions about increasing the deposit on cans to encourage higher return rates.
Impact on litter Only cans and bottles sold via Danish stores are covered by the scheme. It is estimated that 400 million cans of beer and soft drinks
arisings and are bought annually in Germany and brought into Denmark for personal consumption. A recent nature clean-up lead by the Danish
composition Society for Nature Conservation collected 154,389 cans of which only 7,989 (5%) were deposit cans. The rest were foreign cans not
Issues arising from The proportion of non-refillable packaging is increasing and there is evidence of some substitution of refillable bottles with non-
competition in the refillable packaging. Reasons for changing the packaging or choosing non-refillable packaging include:
sector between - practicality and cost: Refillables, although part of the deposit and refund scheme, are collected by the breweries themselves. By
refillable / switching to non-refillables the task of collection and sorting is taken over by DRS;
disposable - marketing: A refillable bottle looks less attractive with its scuffs, marks and chips.
Issues arising from The recent inclusion of non-carbonated drinks in the deposit and refund schemes means that packaging for some beverages (such as
competition in the still water) may now be available in both refundable (eg plastic bottles) and non-refundable packaging (eg cartons).
sector between The extension of the law in 2005 to also include alcopops followed a study commissioned by the Danish Environmental Protection
packaging materials Agency on how best to manage the waste from disposable packaging not currently covered by the mandatory deposit. The study also
recommended extending the deposit to waters. However, at the time it was decided not to accept this recommendation as only water
plastic bottles would have been subject to the deposit. Since some waters in Denmark were sold in beverage cartons, the Government
concluded there would have been competition problems. In its recent review of the Statutory Order the Government decided that the
environmental benefits outweighed any concerns about competition.
Some substitution to non-refundable packaging may take place due to the inclusion of all waters in the scheme, however other
aspects such as consumer acceptance are just as important if not more.
Evidence of See above for competition between refillable and disposable packaging.
substitution of new
packaging material
Note:
Exchange rate: £1 = DKK 9.4249
A2.1 COLLECTION AND LOGISTICS FEES
Producers and importers who have registered one-way packaging deposit

labelled with direct printing must pay upfront fixed fees on the packaging.
The same fixed fees are applicable to producers and importers using deposit
labels who have chosen to report every four weeks.
Table A2.2 Upfront Fixed Fees (excluding VAT) for Sales of One-Way Packaging (valid
4 September 2008 to 31 December 2009)
Packaging material Container size Deposit Collection fee Logistics fee

[litre] [øre (pence)] [øre (pence)]
Glass bottles 0.10 Type A 34.0 (~ 0.036 pence) 0.0
0.18 Type A 34.0 (~ 0.036 pence) 0.0
0.25 Type A 34.9 (~ 0.037 pence) 0.0
0.28 Type A 35.2 (~ 0.037 pence) 0.0
0.30 Type A 36.4 (~ 0.039 pence) 0.0
0.33 Type A 38.6 (~0.041 pence) 0.0
0.34 Type A 37.5 (~ 0.040 pence) 0.0
0.35 Type A 37.6 (~ 0.040 pence) 0.0
0.36 Type A 36.7 (~ 0.039 pence) 0.0
0.37 Type A 36.7 (~ 0.039 pence) 0.0
0.38 Type A 36.6 (~ 0.039 pence) 0.0
0.40 Type A 37.4 (~ 0.040 pence) 0.0
0.50 Type A 45.6 (~ 0.048 pence) 0.0
0.55 Type A 51.0 (~ 0.054 pence) 0.0
0.57 Type A 52.7 (~ 0.056 pence) 0.0
0.60 Type A 53.9 (~ 0.057 pence) 0.0
0.63 Type A 54.1 (~ 0.057 pence) 0.0
0.64 Type A 54.1 (~ 0.057 pence) 0.0
0.65 Type A 55.0 (~ 0.058 pence) 0.0
0.66 Type A 55.9 (~ 0.059 pence) 0.0
0.70 Type A 56.6 (~ 0.060 pence) 0.0
0.75 Type A 55.0 (~ 0.058 pence) 0.0
0.80 Type A 60.5 (~ 0.064 pence) 0.0
1.00 Type C 67.4 (~ 0.072 pence) 0.0
1.50 Type C 82.6 (~ 0.088 pence) 0.0
2.00 Type C 98.9 (~ 0.105 pence) 0.0
3.00 Type C 162.2 (~ 0.172 pence) 0.0
Plastic bottles 0.33 Type A 20.6 (~ 0.022 pence) 0.0
0.50 Type B 21.7 (~ 0.023 pence) 0.0
0.60 Type A 22.6 (~ 0.024 pence) 0.0
1.00 Type C 21.1 (~ 0.022 pence) 0.0
1.50 Type C 26.8 (~ 0.028 pence) 0.0
2.00 Type C 31.1 (~ 0.033 pence) 0.0
Aluminium cans 0.25 Type A 11.2 (~ 0.012 pence) 0.0
0.33 Type A 9.8 (~ 0.010 pence) 0.0
0.36 Type A 9.9 (~ 0.011 pence) 0.0
0.44 Type A 9.9 (~ 0.011 pence) 0.0
0.50 Type A 10.7 (~ 0.011 pence) 0.0
Steel cans 0.33 Type A 21.2 (~ 0.022 pence) 0.0
0.50 Type A 22.2 (~ 0.024 pence) 0.0
0.65 Type A 21.8 (~ 0.023 pence) 0.0
5.00 Type C 239.1 (~ 0.254 pence) 0.0

A8
Producers and importers who have registered one-way packaging deposit
labelled with self-adhesive deposit labels, and who choose to prepare a yearly
sales report or not to report at all, pay fixed account fees at year end.
Table A2.3 Fixed Account Fees (excl VAT)
Packaging material Container size Deposit Collection fee Logistics fee

[litre] [øre (pence)] [øre (pence)]
Glass bottles Less than 1 litre Type A 40.7 (~ 0.043 pence) 0.0
1 litre and above Type C 68.6 (~ 0.073 pence) 0.0
Plastic bottles Less than 1 litre Type A 18.9 (~ 0.020 pence) 0.0
Exception: 0.5 litre Type B 21.7 (~ 0.023 pence) 0.0
Aluminium cans Less than 1 litre Type A 9.9 (~ 0.011 pence) 0.0
Steel cans Lest than 1 litre Type A 21.7 (~ 0.023 pence) 0.0
If the producer or importer purchases self-adhesive deposit labels, the cost

includes the material cost for the label, as well as the deposit fee. In addition,
the producer or importer has to pay collection and logistics fees.
Table A2.4 Price of Deposit Labels (øre (pence) excl VAT)
Cost per label

Production of labels 7.5 (~ 0.008 pence)
Deposit value Type A = 80.0 (~ 0.085 pence)
Type B = 120.0 (~ 0.127 pence)
Type C = 240.0 (~ 0.255 pence)
Table A2.5 Handling Allowances, 2008 (øre (pence) excl VAT)
Single use Shops with RVMs, who Shops with RVMs, who Shops, who handle
packaging have received efficiency have not received efficiency packaging
subsidies subsidies manually and who
With Without With Without have not received
compactors compactors compactors compactors efficiency subsidies
Metal 0.9 (~ 0.0010 1.5 (~ 0.0016 0.9 (~ 0.0010 3.6 (~ 0.0038 8.6 (~ 0.0091 pence)
pence) pence) pence) pence)
Plastic 1.9 (~ 0.0020 6.0 (~ 0.0064 1.9 (~ 0.0020 6.0 (~ 0.0064 10.3 (~ 0.0109 pence)
Glass 6.0 (~ 0.0064 7.8 (~ 0.0083 6.0 (~ 0.0064 7.8 (~ 0.0083 11.2 (~ 0.0119 pence)
A2.2 REFERENCES FOR DANISH INFORMATION
Email communication (06.10.2008) with Knud Støvring, Business

Development, Anker Andersen A/S.
APEAL’s New Position on the Danish Return System,
Dansk Retursystem’s website, www.danskretursystem.com

A9
Telephone interview (13.08.2008) with Rikke Møller, Dansk Retursystem.
Telephone interview (14.08.2008 and 25.09.2008) with Inge Fisker,

Communication Manager, Dansk Retursystem.

A10
A3 GERMANY
Table A3.1 The German Deposit and Vending System (with focus on one-way packaging)
Aspect Description
Name of scheme Die Deutsche Pfandsystem (the German deposit system).
Date of introduction / changes The current German deposit and refund scheme was introduced on 1 January 2003, with significant amendments
in recent years introduced in May 2005. The main purpose of the Ordinance is to increase to at least 80% the share of beverages in refillable
containers and ‘environmentally favourable’ non-refillables.
In drafting the 1991 Ordinance, the government’s initial idea was to introduce a deposit scheme for non-refillable beverage
containers. However, it was agreed with industry representatives that used packaging and beverage containers could also
be collected as part of a ‘dual system’ and exemption clauses were added to the Ordinance. Therefore, prior to the
introduction of the deposit scheme in 2005, non-refillable beverage containers were subject to collection under the Green Dot
system (run by Duales System Deutschland GmbH (DSD)) through kerbside household collection and forwarding of sorted
packaging for recycling. Nevertheless, in order to protect refillable beverage containers, refill quotas were added to the
Ordinance to help achieve this and the deposit provisions remained in the text to provide an incentive to continue to use
refillables.
Ordinance on the - required that, under certain circumstances, a deposit on non-refillable beverage containers,
Avoidance and and containers of detergents and cleaning agents and of emulsion paints should be charged;
Recovery of Packaging - stipulated, with regard to beverage containers, that if the national market share of refillable
Wastes of 1991 containers fell below 72% (the level in 1991) and if the market share of the individual beverage
categories fell below their 1991 level, a mandatory deposit would be imposed on non-refillable
beverage containers. The market share of the individual beverage categories in refillables was
in 1991 82% for beer, 73% for carbonated soft drinks, 91% for mineral water, 35% for still soft
drinks and juices, and 29% for wine. For pasteurised milk, the market share of refillable
containers and PE pouches together were not to fall below 20%;
- obliged retailers to take back all sales packaging from consumers and ensure it is recycled;
- exempts the above, provided that a ‘dual system’ operates that collects used packaging from
households and meets the recycling targets specified in the Ordinance.
Aspect Description
Packaging Ordinance - clarified that if the market share was still below 72% 24 months after the announcement,
of 21 August 1998 mandatory deposits would be imposed six months later on the beverage categories whose
market shares were below the 1991 levels or in the case of milk, below 20%.
In 1997 the market share of refillable containers fell below the 72% threshold for the first time, and
the shares for beer and mineral water were below their respective 1991 levels. After prolonged
discussions and many legal proceedings, mandatory deposits were imposed from January 2003 on
non-refillable containers for water, beer and carbonated soft drinks.
As an effect of the deposits taking effect by default, the legislation did not specify the operational
rules for the deposit system. As a consequence, the government gave manufacturers and retailers
until October 2003 to introduce a nation-wide clearing system. As a result of political
disagreement and legal uncertainty, this deadline was not met and instead a series of independent,
mutually exclusive arrangements emerged. Some arrangements were so-called ‘open systems’ (eg
P-Pfand, Vfw, Westpfand), which accepted all containers as part of the system, and therefore
operated clearing systems to ensure the retailer was refunded any additional refunds paid out.
However, the majority of the market was covered by individual schemes, so-called ‘island
solutions’ (eg discount chain own systems, PET-Cycle, Red Bull), where retailers took back only
the containers sold in store. Retailers operating these independent solutions avoided the need to
participate in expensive clearing systems by only accepting their own containers. This was done
by specifying bottles of particular shapes for the products sold in their stores. This was not
possible with cans, which have a generic shape, and as a consequence these retailers often stopped
selling cans. The number of different deposit systems and island solutions, each with its own
requirements for special marking or pack design, fragmented the beverage market in Germany
adding to production costs and reducing economies of scale.
The government acknowledged that charging deposits n some drinks categories but no on others
was confusing. It therefore proposed charging a deposit only on beverage containers considered
‘environmentally unfavourable’. However, this initially met opposition in the Bundesrat.
Packaging Ordinance - repealed the provisions of the 1998 Ordinance;
of 24 May 2005 - the scope now applies to beverages in ‘environmentally unfavourable’ non-refillable
containers, including non-carbonated soft drinks (eg flavoured water, iced tea, fruit drinks)
and alcoholic mixed drinks (eg alcopops), and no longer to containers below the 72% refillable
threshold. The objective is for 80% of beverages to be in either refillable or ‘environmentally
favourable’ containers. The categorisation of ‘environmentally unfavourable’ containers was
based on the outcome of second life cycle assessment of drinks packaging commissioned by
the Federal Environmental Agency (UBA);
- removed the legal basis for the individual solutions (‘island solutions’). This means that from
1 May 2006 stores now have to take back all containers of the material they supply, regardless
of brand or size;
- reduced the deposit paid on packaging of 1.5 litres and above.
Aspect Description
Packaging Ordinance - clarifies the single use packaging covered by the legislation;
of 4 April 2008 - expands the deposit system to include dietetic drinks as of April 2009; and
- exempts bioplastics bottles made with more than 75% renewable materials [ie PLA bottles]
from the deposit scheme with effect from end 2008 until end 2012. The purpose is to promote
innovative packaging.
Packaging materials covered by All ‘environmentally unfavourable’ one-way packaging from 0.1 litres to 3 litres. This includes cans, glass and plastic
the scheme bottles for:
• beer, including mixed drinks containing beer;
• mineral water, including sparkling and still water, spring water, table water, flavoured water, water with caffeine, and
water with oxygen;
• carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, including cola, lemonade, mixed drinks containing fruit juice or tea and
mineral water, sports drinks, energy drinks, tea and coffee drinks intended for consumption as cold drinks; and
• mixed alcoholic drinks produced using products subject to spirits tax or fermentation alcohol made from beer, wine or
wine-like products, as well as drinks containing less than 50% wine or wine-like products.
Packaging materials not Currently the following drinks are excluded: fruit juice and nectar, drinks containing a minimum of 50% milk, dietetic
covered by the scheme beverages (ie food for special dietary uses, such as baby foods, weaning foods, slimming foods), wine and spirits.
In addition, the following packaging materials are categorised as ‘environmentally favourable’ and therefore excluded:
cartons, polyethylene bags and stand-up bags.
Voluntary or mandatory system Mandatory
European Court of Justice In 2001, the European Commission referred a case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in which it argued that, by
proceedings introducing deposit and return obligations that depend on the proportion of reusable packaging on the German market, the
German legislation imposes a particular burden on producers of mineral water and thereby constituted a barrier to intra-
Community trade that is not justified by reasons relating to environmental protection. The specific subject of mineral water
was partly chosen as mineral water is required, under other European rules, to be bottled at source. To make up for the cost
of transporting goods over long distances, foreign producers preferred non-refillable containers.
In a parallel case, brought by the Austrian producer Radlberger and Spitz, which export beverage to Germany, against Land
Baden-Württemberg before the Administrative Court of Stuttgart, the Administrative Court had referred several questions
to the ECJ. Radlberger and Spitz submitted that the German rules on rates for reusable packaging and the related deposit
obligations were contrary to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the free movement of goods.
In its ruling (published in December 2004), the ECJ found that the German rules did not affect sales of drinks produced in
Germany and those from other Member States in the same manner. It agreed that deposit systems for non-refillable
packaging do help increase the return rate for used packaging and thereby contribute to improved recycling of waste, and
that promoting reusable packaging contributes to reducing the amount of packaging waste to be disposed of. However, it
found that a transitional period of only six months was not sufficient to enable producers of mineral water to adapt their
production and management of non-refillable packaging waste to the new system. Specific to the Radlberger and Spitz case,
the ECJ ruled that a sufficient number of return points must be ensured so that consumers can recover the deposit even if
they do not go back to the initial place of purchase. Not enough of those were available, according to the court.
Aspect Description
Level(s) of deposit levied For non-refundable packaging, the types of deposit are:
Packsize Before 28th May 2005 After 28th May 2005

Volumes of less than 1.5 litres 25 cent (~ 20 pence) 25 cent (~ 20 pence)
Volumes of 1.5 litres or more 50 cent (~ 40 pence) 25 cent (~ 20 pence)
Type of collection systems Reverse vending machines (RVMs) and manually.
Role of retailers, beverage All parties in the system must register with Deutsche Pfandsystem (DPG), including fillers, importers, retailers, service
manufacturers, local authorities providers, suppliers of RVMs, operators of counting centres, label printers including can makers. DPG’s role is to conclude
contractual agreements with all these, control the use of the on-pack logo, manage the central database for deposit clearing,
approve all participants’ data systems and equipment, and undertake marketing.
DPG does not handle deposit and refund flows, nor have information about deposit monies received and refunded by
producers and retailers. This means that DPG does not have access to unredeemed deposits. Instead, this aspect of the
system is handled by the producer/importer and retailer directly, or through commercial service providers (mainly existing
deposit system operators, data processors, waste management companies etc). If using service providers, producers and
retailers negotiate individually with these. In that sense, the German system is modular with no central clearing house.
Individual retailers contract waste management companies (or service providers) to collect the returned containers for
recycling. The waste companies (or service providers) must provide evidence to the authorities that the containers have
been recycled.
Retailers purchase their own RVMs, or make other arrangements for counting the containers and refunding the deposit.
Retailers must negotiate directly with their suppliers on any arrangements to share the cost of these.
A one-off registration fee is to be paid to DPG for each barcode registered with the system (see Table A3.4). The fee depends
on the number of containers placed on the market each year. In addition, each participant of the deposit system pays an
annual fee. The fee covers only registration and participation in the national scheme. Participants also bear other costs,
including: fees to service providers for data management, logistics and other services; costs of RVMs; counting centres; and
transport to recycling.
Mechanisms for reimbursing Retailers reimburse deposits either directly with the producer / importer or through service providers if the retailer decides
deposit to retailers to have these act on its behalf. When purchasing beverages from producers/importers, the retailer pays a deposit. The
deposit is put into a “deposit account” and the producer/importer acts as the deposit account holder. If the retailer has
RVMs installed, readings from the RVM will determine the bill to be sent to the deposit account holder. If the retailer does
not have any RVMs, the packaging must be counted at a counting centre prior to a bill being issued.
Unredeemed deposits end up with the deposit account holder. In some cases, unredeemed deposits may be part of the
negotiations between retailers and fillers/importers.
Aspect Description
Mechanisms for reimbursing Reverse vending machines (RVMs) are the main option for returning packaging, especially in larger shops. The RVMs are
deposit to consumers generally situated near the entrance of the store, near the drinks section, or sometimes tucked around a corner. For vending
machines providing beverage in refundable containers, legislation requires it to be possible to redeem the deposit nearly
(which is generally done by placing an RVM nearby).. The DG Enterprise survey identified three predominant RVM
designs in supermarkets:
- a wall mounted or floor mounted RVM with a circular opening where the container is placed horizontally on a
conveyor belt and taken through to the sorting area the other side while at the same time scanning the packaging.
Rejected containers are rejected and returned to the consumer;
- a floor mounted RVM with an upper and lower vertical opening, each with a door. Containers are placed upright in
either opening and the door is closed while the container is scanned. When a green light comes on, the consumer can
again open the door. The empty containers are stored upright in a large trolley inside the machine with an upper and
lower tray. When the machine is full, the front of the machine is opened and the trolley is wheeled away and replaced
with an empty trolley;
- a floor mounted machine with a single circular opening and a conveyor belt. The machines were not sited near the
stockroom, which may indicate that the containers are stored inside the machine.
If the RVM is not working or if it does not accept a refundable container, the store must accept containers manually.
The DG Enterprise survey found that in stores without RVMs, refundable containers are generally returned at the checkout,
where the containers are checked visually and generally stored in large boxes nearby. The hypermarket REAL had a special
covered area for returning empty containers. The containers were checked visually, sorted and a refund voucher was
printed to be deducted from the bill in store.
Stores with shop floor less than 200 m2 can choose to only accept non-refillable containers of brands they sell themselves.
To be eligible for a refund, the packaging must be marked with the security logo, a barcode and the DPG logo. To obtain the
special inks required for the security logo, label printers and can makers must be registered and certified with DPG.
Geographical areas covered Nationwide.
German retailers near the Danish border are authorised through an exemption by the local government in Schleswig
Holstein to sell drinks to Scandinavian consumers without charging the German deposit. This is not the case for other
border areas in Germany. The Scandinavian consumers must complete an export declaration confirming their intention to
export the beverages purchased to their home countries on the same day. The declaration does not contain a statement
preventing these customers from returning empty beverage containers to the border shops.
Storage and handling of Larger stores will have compactors for plastic bottles and cans. The compactor will be lined with a plastic bag into which
collected packaging the bottles and cans are dropped from the conveyor belt. When the bag is full the content with be compacted and the bag
will be removed manually from the compactor. In stores without compactors, the plastic bottles and cans are also dropped
into large plastic bags, the content is however not compacted. The bags are then sealed and transported to a sorting centre.
Glass bottles are taken via the conveyor belt to a sorting table, where the bottles are sorted manually. The glass bottles are
generally packed in plastic bags and transported to a counting and sorting centre. There are in Germany some 22 counting
and sorting centres.
The counting and sorting centres count the packaging and report deposit values back to the relevant service providers. The
plastic bottles and cans are then compacted and the packaging is delivered to/collected by a waste management company.
Aspect Description
Onward shipping of waste Individual retailers contract waste management companies (or service providers) to collect compacted packaging containers
packaging to recyclers for recycling. The waste companies (or service providers) must provide evidence to the authorities that the containers have
been recycled. Waste that has not been compacted is collected and taken to a counting centre for counting and subsequent
compaction.
Links with other non-deposit The survey for DG Enterprise found a number of deposit-bearing products marked with a ‘foreign’ Green Dot (eg a Green
packaging collection systems Dot indicating participation in FOST Plus in the Belgium market). These were mostly imports and could potentially be
and local authority collection confusing to the German consumer.
systems
Consumer information issues The uniform 25 cent deposit on all non-refillable containers covered by the Ordinance was introduced to reduce confusion
of refund values.
The DG Enterprise survey found that there were potential sources of confusion between deposit-bearing products and non-
deposit products between:
- fruit juices and soft drinks containing fruit juice;
- drinks falling into the ‘dietetic beverage’ category and similar drinks not exempt from the deposit; and
- alcopops covered by the deposit and those that are not (this depends on the wine or alcohol content).
Administration of the scheme DPG, a not-for-profit organisation formed by the trade associations representing the retailers (HDE) and the food producers
(including cost) (BVE)., is responsible for the management of the labelling standards, the provision of the master database, IT interface,
ownership of the deposit label. The organisation was formally registered in June 2005. DPG does not handle deposit and
refund flows.
Broader financing issues As a not-for-profit organisation, DPG is financed by fees paid by the participants of the deposit system. To accommodate
this, fees are adjusted on an annual basis. No information about DPG’s annual accounts has been identified.
The Roland Berger study, commissioned by AGVU, reports that initial investments to set up the scheme has been in the
region of €726 million. Retailer investment was in the region of €702 million including purchasing of RVMs, and industry
investment in the region of €23.8 million. The study estimates the annual cost to be in the region of €793 million, of which
€699 million is the annual cost to retail in the form of clearing, personnel and depreciation and €93.7 million is the annual
cost to other industrial players.
The Prognos study, commissioned by APEAL, Ball Packaging Europe and SKB, applied a macroeconomic input-output
model and found the direct monetary effect of installing and operating the new deposit scheme to be €640 million, of which
the cost of the RVMs account for approximately 200 million Euro and the personnel cost to the retail market more than €300
million. Other costs include investment in clearing houses (service providers), personnel costs etc. The indirect
up/downstream effect was identified as an additional €340 million. The effect on the various sectors varied considerably: a
positive effect was identified for RVM manufacturers of €170 million and 1200 employees, and an indirect up/downstream
effect of €140 million and 1100 employees; a negative effect was identified for beverage can and glass bottle manufacturers
of 2100 and 800 employees respectively; whereas a positive effect was identified for plastic bottle and carton manufacturers
of 2600 and 500 employees respectively.
Aspect Description
Impact on quality of collected Some sources do not considered the scheme to have had any impact on the quality of the waste materials collected
waste materials compared to the quality while being collected by DSD in the past. Others consider there to have been some quality
improvement in the counting centres due to the packaging arriving non-compacted and thereby enable better sorting.
Contrary, the glass industry has experienced problems with the quality of the cullet produced from the collected glass
bottles owing to the bottles no longer being pre-sorted by colour at bottle banks.
The Roland Berger study states that compulsory deposits have further destabilised the reuse system in that the existence of a
separate collection system has led to inefficiencies in the Duales System. The argument is that the compulsory deposits
diminish the efficiency of household-based collection.
Impact on collection rates There is no longer a legal obligation to publish collection and recycling rates. Recycling rates are measured by the different
clearing systems. However, these data are not made publicly available partly due to the criticism of the amount of
unredeemed deposits from consumer organisations.
It is assumed that the current recycling rates are high, unofficial figures suggest approximately 95%. Collection rates under
the Green Dot system operated by DSD were relatively high. For example, the recycling rate for metal packaging was in the
region of 80-82%. Critics of the German deposit system question the cost benefit of establishing a separate system to
increase recycling rates by 13-15%.
Impact on litter arisings and The Prognos study reports that no quantitative effects on litter reduction and no economic effects in street cleaning has been
composition identified as a result of deposits on non-refillable beverage containers.
Issues arising from competition
in the sector:
- between refillable / After the initial shift back to refillables just before the deposit on non-refillables was introduced, BMU figures show that
disposable their market share has resumed its previous decline – though less markedly in the case of beer than in the soft drinks, juice
and water sectors (see attachment).. BMU has not yet published official data for 2006 or later.
A limited survey for DG Enterprise found that non-refillable containers were more widely available than before the 2005
amendments entered into force. It also found that a wider range of products were available in refillable containers
compared to the time with island solutions in some supermarkets. However, availability varied between the different
supermarket chains with discount supermarkets now seemingly offering less choice of container type. Drinks brought into
the deposit system from May 2006 are hardly ever packed in refillable containers.
The Consumer Scan survey done by the market research institute GfK found that in the first six months of 2008 soft drinks
and mineral water packaged in refillable containers accounted for 27.2% of the market share. This was 2..6% lower than in
2007 and 25% below the market share prior to the introduction of the deposit scheme. For beer the market share of
refillables is still high (some 86%) held up by the well-established brewery collection and filling systems using refillable
glass bottles and the lower deposit of 8 cents on refillable containers.
The target, as set out in the Packaging Ordinance, is to achieve a market share of 80% for refillables by 2010.
Aspect Description
- between packaging materials During the period of island solutions, most stores stocked no deposit-bearing drinks in cans at all with the exception of the
energy drink Red Bull. According to the survey commissioned by DG Enterprise, some increase in the availability of
canned beer was noticed with only few soft drinks available in cans. PET is the preferred container for refundable non-
refillable containers. Non-refillable glass is not common for deposit-bearing products and the survey noticed a switch to
refillable PET in some supermarket chains compared to the situation during island solutions. Cartons are predominate for
still soft drinks and juices as well as some brands of water, but the survey did not identify any significant increase in the use
of cartons for deposit-bearing products.
The Prognos study reported that in the time period 2002 to 2006, refillable glass bottles had fallen by 10% of the total
packaging mix, cans by 7.3%, and non-refillable plastic bottles had increased by 12% (see Table A3.3).
Evidence of substitution of new The DG Enterprise survey found that drinks subject to the deposit before May 2006 are still packaged mainly in refillable
packaging material glass, refillable PET and non-refillable PET. Drinks brought within the deposit system from May 2006 are seldom packaged
in refillable containers. Instead they are found mainly in non-refillable PET and glass bottles, cans, cartons and pouches.
Although exempt from the deposit system if sold in cartons and pouches, the survey found no or very little evidence of this
being taken advantage of. It seems that the main example of the exemptions having been used to avoid the deposit, is
where producers are making a dietary claim (generally by lowering the calorific content and thereby claiming it to be
slimming beverage).
Note:
Exchange rate: £1 = €1.2631
Table A3.2 Percentage Share Of Refillable Beverage Containers (excluding milk) in
Germany, 1991 – 2005 (BMU)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Mineral water 91.33 90.25 90.89 89.53 89.03 88.68 88.31 87.44 84.94 80.96 74.03 68.33 72.98 67.60 60.47
Non-carbonated
34.56 38.98 39.57 38.76 38.24 37.93 36.81 35.66 34.75 33.62 33.16 29.24 23.96 20.62 17.37
soft drinks
Carbonated soft
73.72 76.54 76.67 76.66 75.31 77.50 77.76 77.02 74.90 66.96 60.21 53.97 65.42 62.15 54.55
drinks
Beer 82.16 82.37 82.25 81.03 79.07 79.02 77.88 76.14 74.83 72.81 70.84 67.99 89.23 87.79 88.53
Wine 28.63 26.37 28.90 28.54 30.42 28.66 28.10 26.20 26.75 25.03 25.41 25.29 24.62 20.04 19.03
Overall (excl
71.69 73.54 73.55 72.87 72.27 72.21 71.33 70.13 68.68 64.98 61.13 56.20 63.60 60.33 56.02
milk)
Source: http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/mehrweganteil_zeitverlauf.pdf
Table A3.3 Percentage Share of Refillable Beverage Containers in Germany, 1991 – 2006
1991 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*

Water 91 81 68 73 68 61 50
Soft drinks 58 53 43 46 43 39 39
Beer 82 73 68 89 88 89 86
Overall 74 67 57 65 62 57 53
Source: Prognos AG (2007) Effects of Deposits on Beverage Packaging in Germany, Apeal, Ball
Packaging and SKB.
Table A3.4 Annual Fees to be Paid to DPG
Operator Annual fees (€)

Producer, importer or retailer - 15 million containers or less 1,200 (~ £950)
- between 15 and 80 million 8,500 (~ £6,730)
containers
- more than 80 million containers 18,000 (~ £14,250)
Deposit account holder 20,000 (~ £15,830)
Deposit account service 20,000 (~ £15,830)
provider
Deposit claimant - three collection centres or less 3,900 (~ £3,090)
- more than three collection centres 6,000 (~ £4,750)
Deposit claimant service 20,000 (~ £15,830)
provider
Collection centre enterprise - three collection centres or less 600 (~ £475)
- more than three collection centres 900 (~ £710)
Label printer 2,500 (~ £1,980)
Can manufacturer 23,000 (~ £18,210)
RVM manufacturer - 200 million RVMs per year or less 8,500 (~ £6,730)
- more than 200 million RVMs per 18,000 (~ £14,250)
year
Counting centre enterprise - three high speed counting 9,000 (~ £7,130)
machines or less
- more than three high speed 25,000 (~ £19,790)
counting machines

A19
A3.1 REFERENCES FOR GERMAN SECTION
Court of Justice of the European Communities (2004) Judgments of the Court of

Justice in Cases C-463/01 and C-309/02, press release No. 98/04, 14 December
2004.
Email communication (29.09.2008) with Anders Linde, Director – External

Environmental Affairs, Rexam plc, and Gert-Walter Minet, Vice President –
Regulatory Affairs, Ball Packaging Europe GmbH.
Email communication (06.10.2008) with Knud Støvring, Business

Development, Anker Andersen A/S.
Europen (2004) Mandatory Deposits on Non-Refillable Beverage Containers in

Germany: The Economic, Environmental and Social Effects, Europen, available at
http://www.europen.be//?action=onderdeel&onderdeel=3&titel=Key+Topic
s&categorie=1&item=1
Ronald Berger (2007) European Packaging Policy - The Consequences of a Deposit

Scheme for Disposable Packaging based on the German Example,
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Verpackung + Umwelt e.V. (AGVU).
Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH, http://www.dpg-

pfandsystem.de/servlet/PB/-s/6wij9813oxkdz130zd3i217v1izv6md/menu/-
1/index.html
Perchard D and Bevington G (2007) Study on Factual Implementation of a

Nationwide Take-Back System in Germany after 1 May 2006, DG Enterprise,
available at
http://ec.ecuropa.eu/enterprise/regulation/goods/docs/art2830/study_dep
osit_systems.pdf
Thörner, T., Schütz, N. and Motz, G. (Prognos AG) (2007) Effects of Deposits on
Beverage Packaging in Germany, APEAL, Ball Packaging Europe and Stichting
Kringloop Blik (SKB).

A20
A4 SWEDEN
Table A4.1 The Swedish Deposit and Vending System (with focus on one-way packaging)
Aspect Description
Name of scheme Det svenska retursystemet (the Swedish deposit system).
Date of introduction / The current Swedish deposit and refund scheme was introduced in 1984 for aluminium cans. The can deposit system was
changes in recent years introduced in law after a multi-national can producer starting to produce cans in Sweden. In 1994, the scheme was expanded to
include PET bottles, and in 2005 the scheme was expanded to also include steel cans and all types of plastic bottles.
Prior to the introduction of the current deposit system for non-refillable beverage containers, deposit systems for refillable
containers have been run by the breweries themselves for more than a hundred years.
The Swedish scheme is regulated by the Ordinance on Deposit Scheme for Plastic Bottles and Metal Cans, introduced in 2005.
Lag om återvinning av - introduced the deposit and refund system for aluminium cans;
dryckesförpackningar av aluminium, SFS - applied to beer and soft drinks;
1982:349 (Law on recycling of beverage - did not specify the administration or organisation of the deposit system (instead
packaging of aluminium, No. 349 of 1982) this was left up to breweries, importers and retailers).
Lag om vissa dryckesförpackningar, SFS - expanded the deposit and refund system to also include PET bottles.
1991:336 (Law on certain beverage
packaging, No. 336 of 1991)
Forördning om retursystem för - expands the deposit scheme to also include steel cans and all types of plastic
plastfaskor och metallburkar SFS 2005:220 from 1st January 2006;
(Ordinance on deposit scheme for plastic - specifies that all producers and importers of beverage products in single use
bottles and metal cans, No. 220 of 26 April plastic bottles or cans must register with an approved deposit scheme; and
2005) - specifies that the packaging must be labelled with information about the deposit
scheme to which it belongs and the amount of deposit applied.
Packaging materials All plastic and metal beverage containers for ready-to-drink beverages (Order No. 220 does not specify the content of the
covered by the scheme beverage containers except for a few exemptions as listed below).
Deposits also apply to refillable glass bottles.
Packaging materials not The following drinks are excluded: drinks containing 50% or more of dairy products, juice (fruit or vegetable). Squash and
covered by the scheme cordial is also excluded as they are not ready-to-drink beverages.
Juice and milk are excluded mainly for hygiene reasons. The potential hygiene issues due to bacteria growth and the nuisance of
smell is not considered acceptable.
Non-refillable glass bottles account for approximately 0.5% of the beverage packaging market and are not required by Swedish
law to be part of a deposit scheme.
Aspect Description
Voluntary or mandatory Mandatory
system
Level(s) of deposit levied The deposit is determined by the material and the volume. For one-way packaging, the different types of deposit are:
- Cans: SEK 0.50 (~ 6.2 pence);
- PET bottles of 1 litre or less: SEK 1.00 (~ 12.4 pence); and
- PET bottles larger than 1 litre: SEK 2.00 (~ 24.8 pence).
Type of collection Reverse vending machines (RVMs) and (in small outlets such as corner shops) manually.
systems
Role of retailers, Producers and importers must register with a deposit scheme if they wish to sell beverage products that are included in the scope
beverage manufacturers, of the Swedish deposit and return system. Retailers who wish to be part of the deposit scheme also need to register with
local authorities Returpack. However, their registration is not required by law. Registration with Returpack is free of charge.
In order for Returpack to administer the individual packaging, the product EAN code must also be registered with the scheme
before the product can be part of the scheme. There are two options for deposit labelling: direct printing onto the packaging or
onto the original product label; or self-adhesive deposit labels (purchased from Returpack). Any changes in packaging design or
label must be forwarded to Returpack.
Producers, importers/distributors and producers pay the deposit fee to Returpack, as well as an administration and sorting fee.
Payment is made in advance. The sales locations pay the producer, importer or distributor the deposit when purchasing their
products. The consumer pays the deposit when purchasing a beverage product in store and gets the refund when returning the
empty packaging to store. The returned packaging is counted in either the RVMs or Returpack’s counting centre and the retailer
is reimbursed the deposit.
Collection of the returned packaging is the responsibility of the retailers or breweries. Collection is generally carried out at the
same time as the store receives new deliveries of drinks. The empty beverage containers are taken back to the distribution chain,
collated and transported onto Returpack’s Norrköping sorting and counting facility.
Producer / Deposit
supplier / Sales location Consumer
importer Deposit
Refund
Brewery
Deposit Deposit
collection
Fees
For
Returpack
Container flows recycling
Deposit and refund flows
Returpack income and expenses

Aspect Description
Each deposit scheme, producers and importers must pay an annual registration fee of SEK 10,000 (~ £1,240) to Jordbruksverket
(the Swedish Board of Agriculture), which is the authority approving and overseeing such schemes. The fees are collected by
Returpack and finance the auditing of the scheme.
Mechanisms for Repayments to shops of deposits paid on non-refillable packaging are handled by Returpack. Returpack pays the deposits to the
reimbursing deposit to retailers weekly and prepares monthly summary reports.
retailers Deposit refunds are paid to sales locations when the empty packaging has been tallied up at Returpack’s sorting plant.
Compacted packaging does not require counting as it is registered in the RVM and information is sent to Returpack
electronically.
Mechanisms for Reverse vending machines (RVMs) are the main option for returning packaging. Stores have specific RVMs for cans, PET bottles,
reimbursing deposit to or combi-RVMs taking both cans, plastic and glass bottles. The combi-RVMs are generally only seen in larger stores as they are
consumers significantly more expensive (~ €50,000) compared to the single item RVMs ((~ €5,000).
The cans and bottles are put through a ‘hole’ in the machine that takes the packaging through to the sorting area the other side
while at the same time scanning the packaging. After dropping all the packaging into the RVM, the consumer presses a button
indicating that they have finished loading and the machine generates a refund slip which the consumer can redeem in the shop.
A purchase is not required.
If a manual system is operated, the consumer will take the empty cans and bottles to staff who checks the labelling and a refund
is given.
To be eligible for a refund, the packaging must be marked with the deposit label and an EAN number. The packaging must be
whole and undamaged so that the container can rotate and the barcode can be read electronically in the RVMs. The RVMs also
assesses the shape (height and width) of the plastic bottles. For cans, even if the packaging is damaged or if it not part of the
deposit scheme (eg bought abroad) the RVM will still accept the packaging for recycling. For plastic bottles this is not the case,
they are returned to the consumer. The reason is that it might be made from a plastic type not collected by Returpack and if
accepted may contaminate the waste stream.
The Swedish system does not operate a special ink to avoid fraud like other national deposit schemes, only the barcode and bottle
shape recognition. Fraud has been encountered, such as imported PET bottles being labelled with barcodes for the SEK 2.00
deposit although the bottles were of the size that only entailed the SEK 1.00 deposit.
Geographical areas Nationwide.
covered
Storage and handling of The cans and bottles are crushed as they pass through the RVM and are then stored in large cardboard boxes or plastic bags ready
collected packaging for collection. Cans and plastic bottles must be packaged separately. Cardboard boxes, plastic bags, bag closures and barcodes
are bought from the breweries or wholesalers who are also responsible for the collection of the returned packaging. Collection is
generally carried out at the same time as the store receives new deliveries of drinks.
On-ward shipping of The packaging is collected from the shop by the breweries or wholesalers and transported to Returpack’s sorting plant. A
waste packaging to handling fee is paid to the breweries by Returpack for the collection. The manually collected packaging is then counted using
recyclers high speed counting machines. Packaging collected through the RVMs does not need counting, it is already counted in the RVM
and the information has been sent electronically to Returpack. The packaging is then sorted (PET bottles by colour, cans by
metal), compacted and baled. The PET bottles are transported next door to the Cleanaway recycling plant and the can are
transported to a smelter.
Aspect Description
Links with other non- RVMs accept cans not covered by the Swedish deposit and refund scheme.
deposit packaging Kerbside collection of non-deposit bearing cans, plastic, glass and paper / board. Bring schemes as well as bottle banks in
collection systems and residential areas are also very common. There are no link between these systems and the deposit and refund scheme.
local authority collection
systems
Consumer information Regular advertising campaigns are run on TV and radio. A specific website has also been set up for younger people,
issues www.pantamera.nu and a number of campaigns are run for young people to encourage them to recycle more in general.
No problems have been registered with consumers not understanding the reasoning behind the scheme nor the operation of the
RVMs. The main issues identified is that consumers find it confusing that cans bought abroad and squash and cordial bottles are
not part of the scheme (as not ready-to-drink beverage).
Administration of the AB Svenska Returpack operates the Swedish deposit and return system. The Swedish legislation does not require one single
scheme (including cost) Swedish deposit scheme, however Returpack is the only national scheme.
Returpack is in effect two organisations: Returpack-Burk Svenska AB, set up in 1984, which administers the deposit scheme for
cans, and Returpack-PET Svenska AB, set up in 1994, which administers the deposit scheme for PET bottles. The two
organisations operate under the same name and brand, Returpack.
There are a few organisations running their own own-brand / business-to-business deposit and refund schemes, eg Delå AB,
Svenska Retur PET AB, and PET-System AB.
Broader financing issues Returpack is financed by fees paid by producers and importers for the beverages they sell on the Swedish market and the income
for selling on the metal and plastic for recycling. Key financial figures for the years 2006 and 2007 (SEK 1,000):
AB Returpack-Burk Svenska AB AB Returpack-PET Svenska AB
2006 2007 2006 2007
Net turnover 667,857 710,772 918,311 1,010,193
Deposits, admin and sorting fees 459,001 481,062 884,818 968,811
Scrap, pellet income 208,856 229,710 33,493 41,382
Other income 4,077 292 432 69
Profit on core activities 41,646 42,497 21,377 12,008
The fees paid by producers and importers cover administration and sorting. In 1998, the administration fee was dropped on the
aluminium cans due to the good returns achieved for waste aluminium.
The deposits and fees to be paid by producers and importers are (SEK excluding VAT of 12%):
PET/plastic bottles Cans
Clear Coloured Alu Steel
Deposit 0.89 (~ 11p) 1.79 (~ 22p) 0.89 (~ 11p) 1.79 (~ 22p) 0.45 (~ 5.6p) 0.45 (~ 5.6p)
Administration fee 0.22 (~ 2.7p) 0.52 (~ 6.5p) 0.22 (~ 2.7p) 0.52 (~ 6.5p) na 0.25 (~ 3.1p)
Sorting fee na na 0.05 (~ 0.6p) 0.05 (~ 0.6p) na na
Aspect Description
Direct costs to the retailer include the purchase of any RVMs, packaging, floor space and staff.
Financial support is provided to stores in the form of a handling allowance/subsidy. The allowance is paid per container and
varies according to container type and in-store equipment (ie RVMs, compactors). The handling allowance is provided by
Returpack to contribute the costs involved in handling the bottles and cans (including materials, RVMs, space, and personnel).
The allowance is higher for shops with RVMs to encourage the uptake of RVMs. The allowances are (SEK excluding VAT of
12%):
Handling allowance for manual Handling allowance for RVM take-back
take-back
PET/plastic bottles ≤ 1 litre 0.20 (~ 2.48 pence) 0.40 (~ 4.97 pence)
PET/plastic bottles > 1 litre 0.20 (~ 2.48 pence) 0.50 (~ 6.21 pence)
Cans 0.00 0.15 (~ 1.86 pence)
The Roland Berger study reported the total cost per container to be, in 2005, €0.012 (~0.95 pence) for aluminium cans, €0.04 (~
3.17 pence) for steel cans, €0.04 (~ 3.17 pence) for clear PET bottles, and €0.055 (~4.35 pence) for coloured PET/plastic bottles.
These figures covered the costs involved with the collection, logistics and recycling of the packaging less the income from the
sale of the materials.
Impact on quality of Prior to the introduction of the deposit scheme, non-refillable beverage containers ended up in the general household waste
collected waste materials stream. By introducing a dedicated collection system for beverage containers the quality of the collected materials has
significantly improved.
Impact on collection No before and after collection rates identified.
rates The return rate target, as laid down in legislation, is: 90% (for one-way packaging), raised from an initial 75% target. At present
the average return rate achieved in Sweden is 85%.
Actual return rates for one-way packaging:
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Metal 91% 92% 91% 87% 85% 86% 86% 86% 85% 85% 86% 85%
Plastic 78% 80% 77% 80% 76% 78% 78% 77% 79% 80% 86% 82%
The return rates are calculated for the whole country. Returpack has found that the return rate is lower in large cities. For
example, the average big city dweller returned 114 containers annually compared to the national average of 135.
Reasons given for the target not having been met include laziness of the consumer.
Impact on litter arisings No information identified.
and composition
Issues arising from The long-tem trend towards non-refillable packaging is also evident in Sweden, although briefly interrupted by the introduction
competition in the sector of refillable PET bottles in 1991. However, due to practicalities and costs and the fact that consumers prefer the non-scratched
between refillable / single-use containers all breweries have switched to non-refillable containers (Coca-Cola were the last ones to switch last year).
disposable Thus, the proportion of non-refillable packaging is increasing and there is evidence of substitution of refillable bottles with non-
refillable packaging.
Aspect Description
Issues arising from Some substitution to multi-layer PET bottles has been seen in previous years. Another example is a juice producer that used a
competition in the sector different plastic to PET for its products (prior to 2005, juice was not exempt from the deposit system). The legislative expansion
between packaging of the scheme to include all types of plastic is in response to these developments.
materials
Evidence of substitution See above for competition between refillable and disposable packaging.
of new packaging
material
Note:
Exchange rate: £1 = SEK 8.0487. £1 = €1.2631.
A4.1 REFERENCES FOR SWEDISH SECTION
AB Svenska Returpack and AB Svenska Returpack-PET website,

www.returpack.se
Naturvådsverket (2008) Samla in, återvinn! Uppföljning av producentansvaret

för 2006, Rapport 5796.
Returpack information DVD.
Returpack-Burk Svenska AB (2007) Årsredovisning - för räkenskapsåret 1 januari -

31 december 2007 (Annual Report for the financial year 1st January to 31st December
2007), Returpack-Burk Svenska AB.
Returpack-PET Svenska AB (2007) Årsredovisning - för räkenskapsåret 1 januari -

31 december 2007 (Annual Report for the financial year 1st January to 31st December
2007), Returpack-PET Svenska AB.
Ronald Berger (2007) European Packaging Policy - The Consequences of a Deposit

Scheme for Disposable Packaging based on the German Example,
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Verpackung + Umwelt e.V. (AGVU).
Telephone interview (20.10.2008) with Hans Funke, Finance Manager, AB

Svenska Returpack.

A27
A5 NETHERLANDS
Table A5.1 The Dutch Deposit and Vending System (with focus on one-way packaging)
Aspect Description
Name of scheme “Inzamelsysteem voor eenmalige drankenverpakkingen met statiegeld” - collection system for drinks packaging with
deposits
Date of introduction / The current Dutch deposit and refund scheme is implemented through three pieces of legislation, each implementing
changes in recent years different aspects of the system. The 2003 Regulations and Execution Decree puts in place a system for collecting the deposit,
whilst the 2005 Decree places obligations on the importer and producer to organise collection of containers and industry to
achieve specific recycling targets with regard to packaging. Articles 8 to 11 of the Decree sets out further measures to the
scheme, expanding the scope of deposits to also include cans and smaller soft drink bottles. If the recycling targets set in the
Decree are not achieved, then Articles 8 to 11 will come into force.
Second Packaging Covenant 1997 - voluntary scheme;
- prevented beverage producers and importers from substituting refillable beverage
containers with single-use containers unless it could be proved that they had no
additional impact on the environment.
Third Packaging Covenant 2002 - voluntary scheme;
- maintained the provisions of the 2nd Packaging Covenant;
- introduced greater emphasis on minimising litter;
- stipulated that if the aims of litter prevention (introduced in the Second Packaging
Covenant in 1997) were not reached and the collection and reuse percentages for
PET bottles were not met, a deposit system was to be introduced; and
- expired 31 December 2005.
Execution Decree of the Packaging - defines the level of deposit on each particular size of container.
Regulation 2003
Packaging Regulation of the - sets the legal requirements for the beverage branch organisation called Productshap
Beverage Branch Organisation 2003 Dranken. There are four sections of Productschap Dranken: beer; soft drinks; liquor
(includes wine and <15% alcohol); and spirits (>15%alcohol);
- defines the responsibilities of the beverage producers, importers and retailers;
- sets out the requirements regarding the deposit and refund as laid down in Article
2 and 3 and includes the following:
¾ a deposit is to be clearly specified on the sales receipts;
¾ manufacturers, importers and retailers are required to refund the deposit for
the beverage packaging that originates from them and are sold in the
Netherlands.
Aspect Description
Packaging, Paper and Card - changed the scheme from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme;
(Management) Decree 2005 - specifies that the importer and producers responsibilities for organising the
collection of the containers and achieve recycling targets.
Possible future measures Section 4 (containing Articles 8 to 11) of the Packaging, Paper and Card (Management) Decree outlining a revised system for
deposits on drinks containers, is not yet in force. One of the main differences between the revised deposit system compared
to the Packaging Covenant III, is the allocation of waste management costs. The cost of separate collection and sorting will
shift from the citizen (waste collection levies) through the producer (financially responsible for the cost of collection) to the
consumer (as the producer will charge its costs on). This is in line with the aim of internalising environmental costs in the
product price. A further significant difference is the inclusion of cans and small plastic bottles in the deposit system.
The revised system will include deposits on all drinks that are produced in packaging which is “to be made available to
another party”. The following beverages and packaging items are to be excluded:
• medicinal drinks, wine, strong drink1, moderately alcoholic drink2;
• drink cartons, intended for drinks and made of at least 80% paper or card;
• packaging filled with a drink immediately prior to sale;
• drinks packaging with a capacity of 0.1 litre or less;
• drinks for which the producer or importer can demonstrate that less than 500,000 units of consumer packaging are
made available per annum to consumers in the Netherlands.
Exemptions apply to these products for a variety of reasons, principally associated with the less serious burden on the
environment (drinks cartons), as well as market/economic considerations.
In the case of wine and other strong drinks, there are considerable objections to deposits owing to the great diversity of
products while turnover per product/market combination is relatively small. In addition, the transport distance for the
empty packaging also plays a part. In the case of strong drinks, these often have a very low rate of turnover, whereby the
deposit may be reclaimed several years after purchase. Furthermore, virtually all of this packaging ends up in the domestic
waste stream or bottle banks, rather than in litter. Moderately alcoholic drinks are also exempt from the deposit, as the
packaging waste from advocaat, liquorettes and cream drinks, is hardly ever found in litter and their situation is very similar
to that of strong drinks and wine.
The Packaging, Paper and Card (Management) Decree specifies that the annual report (by producers and importers) must
state the manner in which the obligation to charge a deposit has been fulfilled and the results achieved. The administrative
costs ensuing from this are included in the administrative costs associated with the obligation to report. The additional cost
was estimated in 2005 to amount to approximately €500,000. The total cost of reporting amounts to a total of some €650,000
(150,000 plus 500,000), assuming collective implementation.
Packaging materials covered Deposits on single use beverage containers are applicable only to bottles of specific sizes, including:
by the scheme - plastic bottles for soft drink and water larger than 0.5 litre.
Packaging materials not The following packaging materials are not included in the scheme: steel and aluminium cans.
covered by the scheme
(1) 1 Strong Drink: is defined in the Licensing and Catering Act as a drink which at 20 degrees Celsius, has an alcoholic content of fifteen or more percent proof, with the exception of wine.
(2) 2 A moderately alcoholic drink is an alcoholic drink which, at a temperature of twenty degrees Celsius, has an alcohol content of more than twelve but less than fifteen percent proof. These generally
consist of advocaat, liquorettes, cream drinks and fruits in alcohol.
Aspect Description
Voluntary or mandatory Mandatory.
system
Level(s) of deposit levied For single-use bottles the deposit is €0.25.
Type of collection systems Reverse vending machines (RVMs) and manually.
Role of retailers, beverage Beverage producers or importers introducing a packaged drink on the Dutch market that is covered by the deposit
manufacturers, local legislation, are obliged to levy a deposit on this packaging. To the consumer, deposit-bearing beverages may have a label on
authorities the packaging, or it may only be visible through in-store product displays and on the sales receipt.
Beverage manufacturers and importers are obliged to have a system in place to allow for the collection of returned bottles.
Local authorities do not play any role in the Dutch deposit and refund scheme.
Mechanisms for reimbursing Sales locations collect the packaging in their distribution centres and the bottles are transported to return centres. The return
deposit to retailers centres after counting and selecting the packaging pay back the deposit to retailers. Return centres receive the deposit and
handling fee from the manufacturers and importers.
Mechanisms for reimbursing Reverse vending machines (RVMs) are the main option for returning packaging. These are generally placed somewhere
deposit to consumers within the store of purchase of drinks (eg supermarkets, chip shops, kiosks and club houses). The cans and bottles are laid
one by one on a conveyor belt in a “hole” in the machine that takes the packaging through to the sorting area the other side
while at the same time scanning the packaging. Packaging is scanned in the RVM’s and all encoded bottles are accepted.
After loading the packaging into the RVM, the consumer presses a button indicating that they have finished loading and the
machine generates a refund slip which the consumer can redeem in the shop. A purchase is not required.
Stores without RVMs that sell drinks must still accept the types of packaging materials that they sell. In these cases, where a
manual system is operated, the consumer will take the bottles to staff who check the packaging and a refund is given.
Geographical areas covered Nationwide.
Storage and handling of PET packaging is collected in return bags at the retail stores. These bags are automatically filled from the RVM machines via
collected packaging a conveyor belt. After exiting the RVM, the bags are closed with a barcode for identification.
On-ward shipping of waste The store transports the collected package into its distribution centres. The distribution centres transport the collected
packaging to recyclers package to the return centres. Transportation costs are paid by the distribution centres.
Bags for return are transported to the return centres. The return centres count and select the bottles according to the material
and colour. PET bottles are perforated, compacted and sent to recycling companies.
Links with other non-deposit Stores do not collect non-deposit packaging and this responsibility rests with the local authorities. Waste containers are
packaging collection systems placed on streets for the collection of glass and plastic packaging in order to recycle these.
and local authority collection Non-deposit packaging is regulated via the Packaging, Paper and Card (Management) Decree.
systems
Consumer information issues No special information campaigns are run on the deposit system for packaging in the Netherlands, as it is common
understanding that a deposit apply. This may be attributed to the fact that deposit-earing refillable bottles have been sold in
the Netherlands since 1989.
Aspect Description
Administration of the scheme The Foundation of Return Packaging (Stichting Retourverpakkingen) coordinates the collection of one-way deposit-bearing
(including cost) PET containers. Manufacturers and importers can join the Foundation (eg all soft drink manufacturers are members),
however this is not compulsory. Return centres handle the collection, counting and recycling of packaging for Foundation
members. There are three return centres for plastics in the Netherlands. Members pay a processing fee and the deposit to the
Foundation.
The Foundation sends soft drink producers or importers a weekly statement of the quantity of packaging collected and
processed and an invoice. The producer and importers then must pay for the collection and organisation of the levy of the
system dependant on these costs.
There is no such co-ordinating organisation for beer bottles and co-ordination is directly with the breweries.
Broader financing issues Financial information is not publicly available.
Impact on quality of No information identified.
collected waste materials
Impact on collection rates The collection rate is approximately 95%.
The Foundation of Return Packaging report that there are 600 million PET bottles returned every year.
Impact on litter arisings and No information identified.
composition
Issues arising from copetition The proportion of non-refillable packaging is increasing. For example, in 2006 a number of large beverage companies
in the sector between introduced the non-refillable PET bottle with a deposit. The main reason for choosing non-refillable packaging includes:
refillable / disposable - ease of collection: the variety of refillable PET bottles on the market made segregated collection difficult;
- hygiene issues are eliminated;
- space saving at the production location: Washing facilities are not required in a bottling plant for non-refillables;
- marketing: A non-refillable is more representative (no scratches compared to a refillable bottle).
In 2005, more than 85% of beer was packaged in refillable bottles or large packaging with a deposit. For soft drinks and
water, the percentage was slightly lower.
Issues arising from No information identified.
competition in the sector
between packaging materials
Evidence of substitution of No information identified.
new packaging material
A5.1 REFERENCES FOR DUTCH SECTION
Decree of 24 March 2005, laying down regulations for packaging, packaging

waste, paper and card (Packaging, Paper and Card (Management) Decree)
Stichting Retourverpakking Nederland (Foundation of Return Packaging)

website, www.ral.nl/srn
Productschap Dranken website, www.productschapdranken.nl
Telephone interview (17.09.2008) with a representative of Stichting

Retourverpakking Nederland.

A32
Annex B
List of Contributing
Stakeholder Organisations
B1 LIST OF CONTRIBUTING STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS
The following organisations provided stakeholder input into this project:

Advisory Committee on Packaging
Alupro
Anker Andersen A/S
Association of Convenience Stores
Ball Europe
BERR
Biffpack
British Beer and Pub Association
British Glass
British Soft Drinks Association
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England
Coca Cola Enterprises
Dansk Retursystem
Environment Agency
Green Alliance
Incpen
LARAC
Local Government Association
Marks & Spencer
Michael Warhurst
Nampak
Novelis
Packaging Federation
Recoup
Rexam
Stichting Retourverpakking Nederland
Svensk Returpack
Tesco
Tomra
Valpak
WRAP

B1
ERM has over 100 offices
across the following
countries worldwide
Argentina Malaysia
Australia Mexico
Belgium The Netherlands
Brazil Peru
Canada Poland
Chile Portugal
China Puerto Rico
Colombia Russia
Ecuador Singapore
France South Africa
Germany Spain
Hong Kong Sweden
Hungary Taiwan
India Thailand
Indonesia UK
Ireland United Arab Emirates
Italy US
Japan Vietnam
Kazakhstan Venezuela
Korea
ERM’s Oxford Office
Eaton House
Wallbrook Court
North Hinksey Lane
Oxford
OX2 0QS
T: 01865 384849
F: 01865 384848
www.erm.com
ERM consulting services worldwide www.erm.com

Review of Packaging Deposits Systems For The UK PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Packaging Deposits Systems For The UK PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Packaging

Deposits System for the UK

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Review of Packaging Deposits

Prepared by: Simon Gandy, Jonna Fry and

For and on behalf of

Approved by: Simon Aumonier

Date: 11th December 2008

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources

We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 1

2 FEATURES OF BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT SYSTEMS 4

3 THE CURRENT UK SYSTEM 24

4 HOW DEPOSIT SYSTEMS COULD WORK IN THE UK 45

4.1 SCOPE OF A POTENTIAL SYSTEM 45

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63

5.1 ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTIONS TO ACHIEVE INCREASED RECYCLING 65

ANNEX A REVIEW OF MEMBER STATE EXPERIENCE

ANNEX B LIST OF CONTRIBUTING STAKEHOLDER ORGANISATIONS

Defra commissioned a report on deposit schemes in 2004, and its basic

In this report, again commissioned by Defra, Environmental Resources

How Beverage Deposit Systems Work

The Current UK System

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

- retailers • Container Return Rates

The majority of packaging waste from households is collected by local

The UK has seen significant growth in the collection and recycling of

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Figure 1 Packaging Waste Recovery in EU15 (2005)

How Deposits Would Work in the UK

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Figure 2 Venn Diagram of Scope of Deposit System

Alternatives to Packaging Deposits

The most popular alternative suggestion for boosting recycling is to invest

Providing financial support for the expansion of council collection schemes

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Households with Kerbside Plastic Collection / Millions

Sources: Plastic Bottles Recycled: Recoup

Possibly in combination with the above, a number of suggestions were made

None of these suggestions is without difficulties, but all of them present

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

The most radical alternative raised by stakeholders involved changing the

What role might reverse-vending play in a deposit scheme or as an alternative? Could

What would be the likely effect on local authority collections/existing collection

What are the pre-conditions for success of a deposit scheme?

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

What information is there on industry evidence on deposit schemes?

What information - if any - is there on the effects of deposits schemes on littering?

Would certain drinks categories, producers or packaging systems be discriminated

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

If Defra decided against introducing a deposit scheme, there are alternatives

Finally, voluntary schemes at large events have proved highly effective in

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) was commissioned by

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

Defra commissioned a report on deposit schemes in 2004. Its basic findings

In particular, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) supports the

At the same time, it is thought that a deposit system on one-way drinks

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT

The original scope of the project did not include:

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEFRA

Box 1.1 Key Questions to be Addressed in this Study