Reverse Vending Machines and Deposit Systems
Recent interest in beverage bottle reverse vending or deposit systems by some political parties, equipment suppliers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been driven mainly in the belief that they will:
1. Reduce the littering of these containers
2. Lead to an increase in recycling
So what are the facts and what are the implications if they were adopted?
Recycling levels
Beverage bottles recycled at high levels through kerbside collection
The current overall level of recycling of all plastic bottles in the UK is 59% but this includes beverage, detergent and cleaning products, and those for personal care — in fact any area where a bottle is in use.
The level of recycling of plastic high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers for milk is currently in excess of 75% and other beverage containers are recycled at similarly high levels. The recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in the UK has improved from 3% in 2001 to 60% 2014[1]. The future challenge on bottle recycling in the UK will mainly require consumers to recycle more bottles used outside the kitchen and outside the home.
A comprehensive kerbside collection system exists in the UK for plastic bottles, with 99% of councils offering a kerbside service and we expect to see further improvements in collection rates over the coming years as more households recycle more.
Unsuccessful history of deposit schemes
AG Barr, one of the few companies in the UK operating a deposit system, abandoned it in 2015 as only 50% of customers returned their containers for recycling and that is despite paying a 30p deposit. That recycling level falls well short of the recycling level we currently achieve for bottles that have no deposit.
Deposit systems introduced when non-refillable systems were first manufactured tend to result in higher recycling levels, but not those introduced some time (and several generations) after non-refillable containers were first manufactured. In addition, deposit systems work best only for larger containers. Beverage containers that are littered tend to be smaller containers used for drinks consumed outside the home and on the go.
In fact, few countries have succeeded in introducing a deposit system so long after non-refillable bottles were first manufactured and have then gone on to exceed the levels of recycling presently being achieved by beverage containers in the UK at present. Hawaii introduced a deposit scheme in 2006 and the recycling level in 2014, since increasing, has fallen back to 73%.
There is not a compelling case that deposits (even with high rates of financial deposit) will increase recycling rates.
Negative impact on existing recycling systems
The imposition of deposits would have the effect of diverting plastic beverage bottles, which attract strong secondary values in the recycling market, away from the kerbside collection systems currently operated by councils. This would seriously undermine the viability of continued collection of other plastics kerbside and thereby could undermine the overall recycling levels presently being achieved for plastic packaging as a whole, at a very time when legislation requires those levels to continue to improve. As seen in the case of AG Barr, despite having a significant deposit value, not all consumers will return the beverage containers to a redemption point as the easiest method of disposal in the home will be to continue to be to use the kerbside service provided for recyclables.
Costly implementation, costly to consumers, costly to small business
The investment required in redemption points to bring in a deposit or reverse vending system would be significant and with no guarantee of ensuring higher recycling levels than at present and at the same time have the potential of undermining the viability of existing kerbside systems and introducing extra complexity in collection system i.e. with some containers being collected kerbside, some from street side and business recycling bins and with the addition being the new redemption points. The operation of the German deposit scheme costs three times as much per container as household-based collection[2]. It is essential that we invest in recycling services that have a proven record and build upon the infrastructure that local government has already put in place.
Such schemes will lead to increased costs for consumers both through paying bottle deposits and from increased costs of collection, as the offset of the valuable recyclables collected from homes is lost by local authorities. Consumers may face an 8p sugar tax on drinks and a deposit scheme would add a further 20p and require consumers to go out of their way to take their recycling to deposit points instead of conveniently recycling from their kerbside. At a time when food poverty is an issue for many people, it is undesirable to raise the cost of household items or make recycling less convenient than it currently is.
Furthermore, it is not practical for small retailers to install the proposed reverse vending machines. This will result in the diversion of footfall to larger retail units to return beverage containers, loss of customers for local retailers, and increased administration costs that may combine to affect the viability of the local retail sector.
Litter
Low plastic bottle content in litter
Beverage containers make up around 6% of litter based on the results of the INCPEN litter composition survey. Plastic only makes a small proportion of this figure, as the 6% includes glass, plastic and cans. Even if it was assumed that a deposit system would prevent littering of the products included in its scope (an assumption which is not supported by the evidence), a bottle deposit scheme would only target a very small proportion of overall litter and would not address the underlying behaviours that cause people to litter.
Evidence from other countries
Comparisons between countries with and without deposit schemes can be misleading. Countries with deposit schemes in place may also have cultural tendencies which make litter less common and have separate anti-litter measures in place. The BPF could find no evidence of any before and after litter survey in Europe where deposit systems have been introduced. What evidence there is across the globe indicates that having strong anti-litter campaigns is far more effective in tackling litter than having a deposit scheme that only targets one particular product. For example, beach surveys in Australia indicated that the lowest levels of litter were found in Victoria, which has no deposit scheme for beverage containers but does have a very active anti-litter campaign.
What does work to prevent litter?
Litter is a behavioural issue rather than a product specific issue. This challenge does not just apply to beverage containers but to all other litter presently discarded outside the home when people are ‘on the go’. For that reason a comprehensive anti-litter strategy and campaign of the sort under development by the newly established litter strategy advisory group to UK government is a more effect method of tackling litter. These methods directly target behavioural change based on research into littering. An example of an effective anti-litter strategy is NGO HubBub’s interventions on Villiers Street, Westminster, which have reduced litter by 26% (www.hubbub.org.uk/neat-streets).
In conclusion
1. Deposit systems are costly to introduce where existing effective collection infrastructure like that in the UK already exists.
2. Deposit systems will not materially increase recycling of beverage containers in the UK.
3. The only deposit system operated in the UK was abandoned in 2015 due to the fact that the recycling level for that scheme despite a 30p deposit was below that being achieved by UK kerbside systems.
4. Introducing a deposit scheme in the UK would seriously undermine the viability of existing kerbside schemes for the remaining packaging materials.
5. Deposit schemes will not reduce overall littering and can have unintended consequences.
6. The amount of litter associated with beverage containers and especially plastic bottles is very small and policy on littering needs to address all littering not just a small part of it.
[1] RECOUP UK Household Plastics Collection Survey 2014
[2] INCEPEN Factsheet: Packaging & Deposits http://www.incpen.org/displayarticle.asp?a=56&c=2
