| Container
Deposit Legislation (CDL) South Australia has been recycling beverage containers since 1897. From the original "Marine Store" network, to the present day "Collection Depot" system, the Adelaide Bottle Company has been recycling refillable glass bottles for the South Australian Brewing Company and Coopers Brewery for over 100 years. In 1912, the soft
drink industry introduced a voluntary deposit for the refillable glass
bottle being used in South Australia. Under this voluntary deposit system,
In the 1970’s, the one trip non-refillable beverage container, already popular in other states, was introduced in South Australia. This new one trip bottle was not collected for reuse and was often indiscriminately discarded by consumers. Soon it became a ubiquitous and unsightly form of litter. It could be argued that the increase in use of this container ultimately led to the decline of the refillable glass bottle. As volumes of one trip non-refillable beverage container became more and more abundant in the waste stream, issues pertaining to litter, waste collection, landfill space, resource depletion and energy consumption arose. In 1975, the South Australian Government took the bold and then controversial step to introduce Container Deposit Legislation (CDL). South Australia remains the only state in Australia with this type of legislation. The introduction of this legislation generated much debate about its economic, environmental and social benefits. The threat by governments to introduce the measure in other States quickly led to the establishment of voluntary litter reduction targets and increased levels of recycling of post-consumer wastes supported by industry, and more extensive kerbside recycling programs (Macdonald et. al. 1996). What is Container Deposit Legislation? South Australia’s Legislation was framed on the ‘Bottle Bill’ of 1972 in the State of Oregon, USA. CDL is based on the "Polluter Pays Principle," whereby the consumer incurs a monetary penalty at point of purchase, which can be redeemed if the container is returned. In South Australia, it began with the enactment of the Beverage Container Act, which came into force in September 1977 (EPA 1998, March 1996, Industry Commission 1990). The Beverage Container
Act was later incorporated into the Environment Protection Act 1993,
which came into effect in May, 1995 (EPA March 1996). How CDL works In South Australia, CDL operates separately from the voluntary return system for soft drinks mentioned earlier. Under this system, when the beverage filler or manufacturer supplies the beverage to the retailer, the 5 ¢ deposit plus handling fees, which range from 29 to 45 ¢ per dozen, are included into the wholesale price. The filler withholds this money until the "super collector, "the agent for the beverage fillers, makes a claim from sales figures supplied by them. The retailer then sells the beverage to the consumer with the deposit and handling fees included in the retail price. Later the consumer returns the empty container to recycling depots or alternative collectors, and receives a refund on the 5¢ deposit. The deposit on discarded containers becomes available to anyone who collects and returns it to a Collection Depot or alternate collector. There are 120 EPA approved and licensed recycling depots in the Adelaide metropolitan area and major country centres, all conveniently located to provide easy access to the public. Collection Depots generally also collect other recyclables that are not covered by CDL. At the depots, different beverage containers are sorted several ways. They are sorted according to which respective super collector the containers are to be returned, and they are also sorted by material type, such as glass, aluminium and PET plastic. Aluminium cans and PET bottles are either baled or placed into cages and one trip glass bottles sorted into their different colors and broken into cullet form. Non-deposit glass is sorted similarly and kept separate from the deposit glass, whilst refillable bottles are crated. These sorted materials are then returned to the super collectors. The super collectors are Statewide Recycling, Flagcan, Toll Recycling and Adelaide Bottle/Marine Stores Ltd. The super collectors then reimburse the recycling depots the 5¢ deposit plus the agreed handling fees on behalf of the beverage fillers. Freight for aluminium cans and PET from country recycling depots is paid by the super collector, whilst a subsidy is paid for the freight of the glass containers. The super collectors then sell the materials to respective markets for reprocessing or re-manufacture, both locally and overseas. Containers embraced by CDL enjoy very high return rates ranging from 80–90%, depending on type. The value of the unredeemed deposits offsets the cost of funding the CDL system (Warren 1995). It is often incorrectly reported that CDL only applies and works with refillable containers. It is also often reported that kerbside collection systems conducted by local councils are not compatible with CDL. This is not the case in South Australia where kerbside collection systems and CDL compliment each other. How CDL affects the litter stream KESAB has maintained quarterly litter count data for over 20 years. The Keep Australia Beautiful Association has also kept analysis of national litter trends, which have shown that CDL has had a clear impact on litter reduction of beverage containers in the environment of South Australia.
Source: KAB 1996. Items carrying the refundable deposit The table below lists the types of beverage containers that come under the Act.
The Act does not apply to containers containing more than three litres of beverage. Source: Adapted from Environment Protection Authority, June 1999. Arguments in support of CDL The introduction of CDL in South Australia has brought about a greater reduction of beverage containers in the waste stream and considerable less littering of these items. This has in turn resulted in the saving of landfill space. Proponents argue that the redeemable 5¢ deposit has encouraged a high return and recycling rate (80-90%) (EPA 1998, Environment Protection Office 1993, Industry Commission 1990, Macdonald et. al. 1996, Robinson 1997), leading to greater resource recovery and conservation. CDL has spawned an active, significant and viable recycling industry, attracting much investment and providing substantial employment to the local community. There is less contamination in CDL sorted materials which has created a higher demand for the CDL recycled materials compared with kerbside collected materials (EPA 1998, June 1996). The CDL system has also enabled many community and charitable organisations to raise money through the collection of containers. The extra funds are translated back into valuable services for the community. Surveys indicate that 90% of the South Australian public supports CDL and believe that it is effective in reducing litter (EPA 1998, June 1996, March 1996, Environment Protection Office 1993, Recyclers of South Australia Inc. undated, Robinson 1997). Many also consider that it should be extended to other types of containers that the Act does not currently embrace. Anecdotal evidence suggests that CDL has not resulted in price increases of comparable products in South Australia when compared to other states (Recyclers of South Australia Inc. undated, Robinson 1997). Interstate consumers also incur litter and collection costs added via production process and passed on through the cash-a-can, recycling and anti litter campaigns promulgated by industry associations. Local Government in South Australia support CDL. Cost savings come from less labour needed for cleaning up roadsides, parks and beaches, reduced cost of kerbside collection through reduced volume and increased value of material collected and savings in landfill space. Recycling rates of beverage containers under CDL in South Australia exceed the 1995 ANZECC targets. The 44,250 tonnes of materials in excess of the targets may have become litter or landfill, if the legislation was not in operation (Recyclers of South Australia Inc. undated). A 1997 report confirmed that the system in South Australia does remove a substantial amount of materials from the waste stream each year, including non- CDL materials which are not targeted for collection by the kerbside recycling scheme (Nolan-ITU Pty. Ltd. 1997). There are substantial environmental benefits involved. CDL can bring about more than 70% reduction of beverage containers going to landfill. Other benefits include reduced littering, resource conservation and a reduction in energy use. Arguments against CDL Many arguments have been put against the CDL system. Generally opponents believe it imposes a cost on society, confers little benefit, it is inflationary and depresses sales. (Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc. undated). The cost to the community is due to the low intrinsic value of recovered containers far outweighing the cost of operating the system (Rijswijk 1996, Warren 1997). It is also viewed that there is relatively small reductions in the volume and cost of waste disposal and litter, which makes CDL recovery expensive to operate (Moran 1989, Pearce & Turner 1993). Some research shows that it competes with the kerbside recycling by diverting materials of value away, leaving the high volume, low value materials to be picked up by the kerbside recycling scheme. It is argued that CDL threatens the economic viability of kerbside recycling (Robinson 1997, Warren 1995). Under the CDL system, each container is handled and sorted a number of times in the process, which pushes up the average processing cost per tonne of material. Studies show that it is more expensive to operate, either alone or in conjunction with kerbside recycling. In addition, when operated within kerbside recycling systems, it has a negative environmental impact, as the double handling of materials actually increases the use of fossil fuel in the transportation process, contributing more to the greenhouse effect and global warming. This does however provide a ‘cleaner’ value added product with minimal contamination with such product being much sought after by buyers. The definition of a beverage container under the Act is limited in scope and inequitable, as all beverage containers are not uniformly treated. It discriminates against those containers and their products affected by the legislation (Industry Commission 1990, Robinson 1997). Moreover litter items covered by CDL are only a small portion of the litter stream making CDL inefficient in litter prevention (Industry Commission 1990). Even if CDL is extensively implemented, the range of materials that can effectively carry CDL is very limited, only 7% of household waste or 3% of the waste stream (Warren 1997, 1995). This low level of application of CDL on waste materials has little value in contributing to ANZECC’s target of 50% waste diversion by the year 2000. Resources committed to the CDL system should be used to support the kerbside recycling scheme instead, as the kerbside recycling scheme is more efficient in recovering materials from the waste stream, leading to greater savings in landfill space and natural resources conservation. It has been suggested that CDL also changes the behaviour of individuals. It can influence recyclers to favour and concentrate on recycling materials that carry a refundable deposit. Non-CDL materials such as glass jars and paper are diverted to the kerbside recycling system or find their way into the waste stream, thinking that the recyclability of an item may be associated with the deposit (Warren 1995). Consumers can also be swayed into believing that since they have been charged a deposit for the container, then they have a right to litter and leave it to someone else to clean it up. Moreover antagonists consider the Polluter Pays Principle on which CDL is based to be spurious. They argue the mandatory deposit does not discriminate between those who discard the container properly into the garbage system and those who carelessly throw it away in public, since both lose the deposit paid (McGregor & Parish 1984). References Association of Liquidpaperboard Carton Manufacturers Inc, undated, Container Deposits or a Comprehensive Answer to Litter. Environment Protection Authority, May 1998, Beverage Containers Fact Sheet, Container Deposit Legislation, General Information, Draft. Environment Protection Authority, June 1996, Integrated Waste Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide 1996-2015, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Environment Protection Authority, March 1996, Litter! It’s your choice, Public discussion paper, A litter management strategy for South Australia, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Environment Protection Office, July 1993, The South Australian Beverage Container Act 1975, A Summary of its Function and Success, Department of Environment and Land Management Industry Commission, October 1990, Recycling Volume II: Recycling of products, Draft report. Keep Australia Beautiful (KAB), 1996, Looking at Litter and what’s being done about it, A survey of litter in Australia by KAB National Association (Inc.). Macdonald F, Grant T, Girardi G, Sutton P & Grey F, 1996, Regulating Waste: Research into Government measures to encourage minimisation and recycling of post-consumer wastes in Australia, Final report for the Western Regional Waste Management Group Victoria, Monash Publications in Geography Number 47, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University, Melbourne. McGregor L & Parish R, April 1984, Economic Implications of Beverage Container Legislation, Department of Economics, Monash University. Moran A, 1989, Container Deposit Legislation: Some Comments, Litter Research Association Waste Management Authority Recycling Seminar, The Local Government Challenge, Sydney 30 October 1989. Nolan-ITU Pty. Ltd., September 1997, Recycle 2000 Blueprint for the Integrated Resource Recovery within Metropolitan Adelaide. Pearce DW & Turner RK, 1993, Market based approaches to solid waste management, Resources Conservation and Recycling, 1993 no. 8 pp 63-90. Recyclers of South Australia Inc, April 1994, Profile Recyclers of SA. Recyclers of South Australia Inc, undated, Why South Australians favour Container Deposit Legislation. Recycling Advisory Committee, undated, Proposed Recycling Strategy for South Australia, South Australian Waste Management Commission. Rijswijk GV, 1996, Let’s Tax Packaging, Third National Hazardous and Solid Waste Convention, Sydney 26-30 May 1996. Robinson B, 1997, The Use of Enforceable Options, EPA Victoria. Warren M, September 1997, Discussion paper, Economic assessment of kerbside recycling collection funding options. Warren M, April 1995, Container Deposit Legislation and Kerbside Recycling, Report prepared for the South Australian EPA and the Local Government Recycling and Waste Management Board. KESAB Litter Index
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
