Title to be decided on City, date Jürgen Resch

City, date
Title to be decided on
Jürgen Resch
Executive Director of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (NGO)
1
Overview
• Who is Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and what does it
do?
• Main findings of the study „Reuse and Recycling Systems
for Selected Beverage Packaging from a Sustainability
Perspective” carried out by PwC
• Fairytales and real facts about deposit systems
2
Who is Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and
what does it do?
3
Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH)
•
•
•
•
•
Independent non-governmental organization
Nature and consumer protection
Founded in 1975
85 employees
Classical nature protection projects and policy
campaigns
-
Deposit systems for beverage packaging
High standards for recycling (WEEE, packaging etc.)
Low sulfur fuels
Renewable energy
…
4
Main findings of the study „Reuse and
Recycling Systems for Selected Beverage
Packaging from a Sustainability
Perspective” carried out by PwC
5
Why another study about deposit systems?
• A lot of studies regarding deposit systems with false
data and unrealistic assumptions – and thus wrong
conclusions – on the market
• Certain industrial sectors (e.g. big beverage producers
like Coca-Cola, retailers and waste management
companies) have commissioned tainted studies arguing
against deposit systems
• Most available studies focus either on environmental or
on economic aspects of collection and recycling
systems for beverage packaging
6
Taking stock of the past, taking reality into
account: PwC study on deposit systems
• Reuse and Recycling Systems for Selected Beverage
Packaging from a Sustainability Perspective
An analysis of the ecological, economic and social effects of reuse
and recycling systems and approaches to solutions for further
development
• Commissioned by the independent NGO Deutsche
Umwelthilfe
• DUH as Carried out by the auditing and consulting
organization PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
• For the first time a sustainability check on systems for
collection and recycling of beverage containers
7
A global PwC team effort
PwC Germany
Dieter W. Horst
Miriam Scherf
Jens Brodersen
PwC Poland
Agnieszka Rum
PwC UK
Henry le Fleming
PwC Japan
Akira Hayakawa
PwC USA
Alexandre Rossin
PwC Spain
Mariluz Castilla
PwC Austria
Philipp Gaggl
PwC Australia
Kerryn Schrank
8
Scope of the PwC study
• Three different systems for collection and recycling
– Refillable bottles (with deposit)
– One-way (single use) beverage containers with deposit
– One-way beverage containers in curbside collection
systems (no deposit)
• Different kind of beverage packaging
–
–
–
–
Glas bottles (refillable and one-way)
PET bottles (refillable and one-way)
Beverage cans
Beverage cartons
9
Evaluation model in the PwC study
• 10 ecological impact categories with 16 indicators; e.g.
– Resource and material use
– Collection and recycling rates
• 8 economic impact categories with 19 indicators; e.g.
– System costs and revenues
– Impacts on businesses and competition
• 6 social impact categories with 9 indicators; e.g.
– Employment
– Implementation of producer responsibility
10
Main findings of the PwC study
• Refillable systems are more sustainable than one-way
systems
• Deposit systems are more sustainable than curbside
collection of beverage containers
• Deposit systems for beverage containers enable higher
collection rates and better recycling
• Deposit system for one-way beverage containers is not
necessarily more expensive than curbside collection
• Deposit system for one-way beverage containers is
more cost efficient than curbside collection
• Deposit systems and curbside collection can coexist
very well
11
PwC: Deposit achieve much higher collection
and recycling rates than curbside collection
• Collection rate for PET one-way bottles with deposit in
Germany
100 %
50 %
Put on the
market:
100 %
Collected
(including
rests and
adhesions):
99 %
Net
collected
(without
rests and
adhesions):
99 %
Recycling
rate (put
on the
market):
99 %
Open-LoopRecycling
(put on the
market):
NaN
Closed-LoopRecycling:
NaN
Source: PwC, 2011
12
PwC: Deposit achieve much higher collection
and recycling rates than curbside collection
• Collection rate for PET one-way bottles in curbside
collection system in Germany
Collection rate
about half
compared to
deposit system
100 %
Put on the
market:
100 %
Recycling rate
less than a third
compared to
deposit system
50 %
Collected
(including
rests and
adhesions:
64−80 %
Net
collected
(without
rests and
adhesions):
43−54 %
Energy recovery
(put on market):
18−23 %
Open-LoopRecycling
(put on
market):
25−31 %
Source: PwC, 2011
Recycling rate
(put on
market):
25-31 %
13
PwC: Deposit systems enables not only
more, but also better recycling
• In the deposit system all collected materials are
recycled (high quality = high value = 100% recycling)
– “Clear” PET from deposit system: 600-700 AUD / tonne
– “Colored” PET from deposit system: 370-450 AUD / tonne
• The materials collected in the curbside collection are
only partly recycled. The rest is either incinerated or
landfilled.
• Bottle-to-bottle recycling is only made with PET bottles
from the deposit systems
• The quality of the PET from the curbside collection is
not good enough to enable bottle-to-bottle recycling
(mixed materials, impurities, adhesions etc.)
14
PwC: Deposit systems are not more
expensive than curbside collection
• “In an economic comparison of German return systems
for single-use beverage containers – the mandatory
deposit system and the [curbside collection] system – it
has been determined that it is not possible to make any
general statement about which is the more costintensive system. While earlier analyses arrived at the
finding that the deposit system gives rise to higher
costs, current data indicates that, taking costs and
revenues into account, developments are tending to
favour mandatory deposit systems and that
participation in a deposit system can be less costly than
participation in a [curbside collection] system.”
15
PwC: Deposit systems and curbside
collection can coexist very well 1(3)
• “In Germany, the mandatory deposit system is proving
to be a meaningful measure for supporting the political
targets (promotion of ecologically beneficial beverage
packaging, high return rates, high recycling rates, less
littering), and in practice is thus a meaningful
supplement to the [curbside collection] system for the
beverage packaging segment.”
16
PwC: Deposit systems and curbside
collection can coexist very well 2(3)
• “In many countries, [curbside collection] systems (also
for taking back and recovering beverage containers)
have already been introduced to varying extents. If the
recycling rate and, in particular, the bottle-to-bottle
recycling rate is to be increased, it is recommended
that a deposit system for beverage containers be
additionally introduced.”
17
PwC: Deposit systems and curbside
collection can coexist very well 3(3)
• “Mandatory deposit systems and [curbside collection]
systems for single-use beverage containers are aimed in
part at different segments. [Curbside collection]
systems are primarily targeted at household use.
However, a significant proportion of beverage
packaging, in particular, is used outside the home.
[Curbside collection] systems usually cover this
packaging only to a limited extent, whereas the deposit
system also covers consumption outside the home due
to the financial incentive provided. Consequently, the
two systems supplement one another and can co-exist
very well.”
18
Fairytales and real facts about deposit
systems
19
Always the same story: Classic opponents to
deposit fight dirty with made-up arguments
• Large beverage producers (Coca Cola, Carlsberg & Co.)
– A principally ideological fight
• Packaging industry (can and PET bottle manufacturers)
– Also a principally ideological fight, although single
companies favor deposits as a way of securing secondary
raw materials (e.g. US aluminum industry)
• Operators of curbside collection systems
– Financial interest to “keep” materials in the curbside
collection
• Retailers
– Roused by beverage producers and packaging industry
– Fear of additional costs and take back obligation in stores
20
Fairytale:
“Deposit schemes reduce sales volumes”
• Beverage producers argue that they will loose markets
and sales volumes if a deposit is introduced
• Beverage producers also use this argument to convince
retailers to oppose deposit systems
• The fairytale is often backed up by misleading sales
data from the introduction of the German deposit
21
Fairytale:
“Deposit schemes reduce sales volumes”
• Beverage producers argue that they will loose markets
and sales volumes if a deposit is introduced
• Beverage producers also use this argument to convince
retailers to oppose deposit systems
• The fairytale is often backed up by misleading sales
data from the introduction of the German deposit
Fact:
Sales of different beverages vary over time – but not
depending on a deposit
22
Beer sales in Germany before and after the
introduction of deposit 2003
Sales volume in 1.000 liter
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
Beer sales were
going down before
the deposit
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Introduction of deposit on beer
Source: GVM/UBA 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
23
Water sales in Germany before and after
the introduction of deposit 2003
Single largest increase
in sales (+9%) since
1994 in the year of the
deposit introduction
Sales volume in 1.000 liter
14,000,000
12,000,000
Water sales were
going up before
the deposit
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Introduction of deposit on water
Source: GVM/UBA 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
24
Fairytale: “There is no guarantee that
collection is increased with a deposit”
• Opponents of deposit systems argue – particularly in
countries with existing curbside collection – that it is
going to be hard or impossible to increase the already
achieved collection rates and that a deposit system
would be is a wild card without guarantee.
25
Fairytale: “There is no guarantee that
collection is increased with a deposit”
• Opponents of deposit systems argue – particularly in
countries with existing curbside collection – that it is
going to be hard or impossible to increase the already
achieved collection rates and that a deposit system
would be is a wild card without guarantee.
Fact:
Deposit systems always bring high collection rates –
the higher the deposit the higher the collection rate.
No other system can compete – neither in quantity,
nor in quality.
26
Deposit fees and collection rates
Country / State
Germany
Michigan (USA)
Norway
Finland
Iowa (USA)
Vermont (USA)
Denmark
Sweden
Saskatchewan (Canada)
Oregon (USA)
California (USA)
British Columbia (Canada)
Nova Scotia (Canada)
Ontario (Canada)
Alberta (Canada)
New Brunswick (Canada)
Southern Australia (Australia)
Prince Edward Island (Canada)
Massachusetts (USA)
Connecticut (USA)
Maine (USA)
New York (USA)
Newfoundland (Canada)
Quebec (Canada)
Deposit fee in AUD
0,33
0,10
0,17-0,43
0,13-0,53
0,05
0,05-0,15
0,18-0,54
0,15-0,30
0,05-0,38
0,05
0,05-0,10
0,05-0,19
0,05-0,10
0,10-0,19
0,10-0,24
0,05-0,10
0,10
0,05-0,10
0,05
0,05
0,05-0,15
0,05
0,05-0,10
0,05-0,19
Collection rate
98,5%
97,0%
94,0%
93,0%
93,0%
90,0%
88,0%
88,0%
85,0%
84,0%
82,0%
80,0%
78,0%
78,0%
75,0%
75,0%
75,0%
74,0%
71,0%
70,0%
70,0%
70,0%
68,0%
68,0%
27
Fairytale: “Deposit systems turns retail
stores into waste bins”
• Retailers are told and made believe by opponents of
deposit systems, that their stores will be flooded with
waste because of the deposit, that their stores will look
messy and that their customers will go elsewhere.
28
Fairytale: “Deposit systems turn retail
stores into waste bins”
• Retailers are told and made believe by opponents of
deposit systems, that their stores will be flooded with
waste because of the deposit, that their stores will look
messy and that their customers will go elsewhere.
Fact:
Retailers can use the deposit to attract and bind
customers.
29
Deposit systems offer possibilities to sell
more and tie customers closer
• Retailers often keep return-vending machines in the
middle or in the back of the shop in order to lead the
customer though the store (getting them to buy
something on their way out).
This would not be the case if the retailer experiences
hygienic or littering problems.
• 60-80% of the consumers return their bottles and cans
where they bought them. This way of binding customers
is good for business and another reason why retailers in
Germany start to like the deposit system.
30
Thank you very much for your attention!
[email protected]
37
`