Container Deposit Legislation

At the 23 May 2003 meeting of the Environment & Protection Heritage Council (EPHC) ministers deferred consideration of proposals to expand Container Deposit Legislation (CDL) across Australia until after the National Packaging Covenant expires in August 2004.

"Ministers have reaffirmed their commitment to the Covenant as the main national mechanism for managing packaging waste and will wait until after it has been evaluated before considering alternative packaging waste proposals," the Federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Kemp, said. (Read the full media release.)

Container Deposit Legislation: EPA Victoria Study January 2003

EPA Victoria recently released an analysis of the cost of running a container deposit system in parallel with kerbside recycling which found that such a system nationally would cost around $1 billion per year.

The study, conducted on behalf of the EPA by Nolan-ITU, showed that the introduction of a deposit system would result in the retail cost of beverages rising between 13.4 and 14.6 cents per pack. This would result in increases in household expenditure of between $181 and $219 per annum, which would be slightly offset by a reduction in recycling costs.

Taking all factors into account, the study found the net average cost per household would be $157 per annum, which, if implemented nationally, would result in the annual cost of $1 billion to be carried by the nation's households. The EPA study assumed a 10 cent deposit and the return of containers to retailers. The policy paper was peer reviewed by Perchards, a London-based consultancy, which agreed with the cost findings.

The publication, comprising the study into the financial impacts on three Victorian communities by Nolan-ITU and the peer review of this report by Perchards, is available from EPA Victoria's website

Background And Frequently Asked Questions

South Australia is currently the only state with Container Deposit Legislation. Victoria has never had this legislation in place.
During the 60s and 70s in Victoria it was common practice for beverage manufacturers to recover their bottles for refilling through a refundable system. Some manufacturers continue to use this system.
Refillable bottles are typically made of heavy glass to withstand the stress and strain of transporting, collecting, cleaning and refilling.

Developments

In line with other technological developments since the 70s, packaging and the management of packaging waste has changed dramatically.
The beverage industry has undertaken a process of 'lightweighting' their containers. This has reduced the amount of resources required in the manufacture of containers, reduced transport costs per item and, made it a lighter load for the consumer to carry home these products.
These lightweight containers are recyclable but not refillable.
The state government of Victoria introduced a kerbside recycling system and continues to work on improving this already very efficient system.
Victorians have enthusiastically embraced kerbside recycling making them the leading state for recycling in Australia.
Kerbside recycling recovers vast quantities of recyclable materials, including beverage containers, diverting them from landfill and recovering them for reprocessing, ensuring resources are used sustainably.

Why Do People Call For CDL To Be Introduced?

CDL is seen as a means of recovering more beverage containers and reducing litter.
People say that the moment you cross the border into South Australia the reduction in roadside litter is dramatically evident.

What Percentage Of Litter Is Made Up Of Beverage Containers?

Different sets of data tell a different story (see below for current litter data collection).

Clean Up Australia Day data for 2001 includes beverage containers in the top ten litter items at a total of 18.5% contribution to all rubbish surveyed. This includes the listed items:

Glass alcoholic beverage bottle (5.9%)
Glass pieces (4.0%) [assuming they come from beverage containers - kc]
Metal/aluminium soft drink cans (3.1%)
Plastic pet bottles (2.7%)
Plastic water/soft drink bottles (2.8%)
Related items that are not part of CDL collections but are related to beverages are:
Plastic bottle caps/lids (4.2%)
Plastic straws (3.2%)

This makes the total associated beverage litter 25.9%.

As a comparison, cigarette butts were the top littered item at 15.2%.

The Beverage Industry Environment Council (BIEC) estimate beverage containers make up around 10% of the entire domestic waste stream. This figure is based on their 'National recycling and garbage bin audit'.

They add further information as to why they might visibly appear more often in the litter stream:

As beverage containers float, unlike many other items of litter, storm water events, for example, present a misleading picture. For example, a tidal current in a river will pull all floating litter into a particular area which can skew statistics if only floating items will eventually be counted.
If litter counts are generally focused upon specific litter hotspots the resulting counts are not representative of community litter rates (across non-hotspots).

The National Packaging Covenant

The National Packaging Covenant (NPC), introduced in 1999, provides a consistent approach for the effective lifecycle management of packaging nationally, extending far beyond the CDL approach as it covers a broader range of packaging types.

The NPC incorporates core principles of product stewardship and shared responsibility. This means that all parts of the packaging supply chain, governments, and consumers have a role to play to ensure that packaging is developed and managed throughout its lifecycle in a way than minimises adverse consequences.

The NPC requires brand owners to:

Recover recyclable materials by through their own efforts by undertaking to use a specified amount of recycled material in their packaging depending on the particular industry.
Take responsibility for the lifecycle of the packaging. This can include that it is reused or recyclable.
Options to meet obligations include:
Funding or undertaking litter prevention programs. This results in the spread of responsibility for litter prevention programs outside of government.
Funding councils to implement best practice kerbside recycling systems.

Details of companies signed onto the NPC, and their action plans, can be found at www.packcounc.com.au

If companies don't voluntarily participate in the NPC there is a regulatory arm called the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) under which they can be fined.

Australia And The Rest Of The World

Many countries overseas have deposit legislation in place that covers a wider range of items than beverage containers. The landfill rates in many of these countries are very high due to national circumstances, with some of them converting waste to energy to as a solution to this high cost.

Landfill rates in Victoria are relatively low.

Australia has a voluntary recycling system that operates at a lower community cost compared to other systems in place in Australia and internationally.

Questions And Answers:

Q: Who would take the item back - the consumer to a central point for the refund, or the manufacturer to collect from the consumer's home? (Children to get lolly money?)

A: We already have a very efficient kerbside recycling system that is highly supported by the community that collects these items.

A: The NPC provides a consistent approach for the effective lifecycle management of packaging nationally; extends far beyond CDL; established in 1999 with brand owners given three years to sign on. Those that don't can be pursued and fined via the NEPM.

Q: Would supermarkets be willing to relinquish space in their stores, currently used for products, for return facilities?

A: Highly unlikely as it means lost space for selling opportunities.

Q: Don't we already pay for the recycling service through our taxes, rates and the price of the item?

A: Yes, and it works very well.

Q: Why haven't we solved the litter problem?

A: Lack of coordination between bodies, lack on integration across organisations like local government who look after infrastructure, enforcement and education. There has not been an Australia wide anti-litter, or behavioural change, campaign since 'Do the right thing' in the 1970s.

Litter Data Collection

The amount of litter at any point in time is affected by things such as variations in rainfall, wind and the usage of beaches, which in turn are all influenced by temperature and the time of the year. Street cleansing regimes and the amount of litter traps installed also affect the amount of litter at any point in time.

In Victoria there are currently five sets of litter data collected:

BIEC's Litter Disposal Behaviour Index
KABV surveys
EPA Victoria's Beach Litter surveys
EcoRecycle Victoria's Municipal Survey
Summaries of Material collected from Litter Traps in the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers & EcoRecycle's funded litter trap methodology (see below)
Data is very useful because it tells us a story and is used to develop policies and programs about litter prevention.
Data and research on litter can either be behavioural - it tries to answer the question "Why do people litter and what would stop them"
Or it can be based on analysing the amount of litter in the environment - "How much litter is out there"

Currently, the data we have does not go back far enough for us to know whether the problem of litter in Melbourne - and Victoria - is improving or getting worse.

We need to collect this data consistently for several years to make a proper analysis.

Some Statistics

95% of the litter on beaches comes from suburban streets through the stormwater system - Melbourne Water
Councils spend over $40 million each year on litter and street cleaning.
School grounds, on average, are the second most littered areas - Keep Australia Beautiful
Ninety tonnes of dog droppings are deposited every day on Melbourne's streets and parks - Melbourne Water