11

City, date

Title to be decided on

Jürgen ReschExecutive Director of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (NGO)

22

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

33

Who is Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and what does it do?

44

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- …

55

Main findings of the study „Reuse and Recycling Systems for Selected Beverage Packaging from a Sustainability Perspective” carried out by PwC

66

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

77

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 PerspectiveAn 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

88

PwC AustraliaKerryn Schrank

PwC JapanAkira Hayakawa

PwC PolandAgnieszka Rum

PwC SpainMariluz Castilla

PwC UKHenry le Fleming

PwC USAAlexandre Rossin

PwC GermanyDieter W. HorstMiriam Scherf Jens Brodersen

A global PwC team effort

PwC AustriaPhilipp Gaggl

99

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

1010

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

1111

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

1212

PwC: Deposit achieve much higher collection and recycling rates than curbside collection• Collection rate for PET one-way bottles with deposit in

Germany

Put on the market:100 %

Collected (including rests and

adhesions):99 %

Net collected (without rests and

adhesions):99 %

50 %

100 %

Open-Loop- Recycling (put on the

market):NaN

Recycling rate (put

on the market):

99 %

Closed-Loop- Recycling:

NaNSource: PwC, 2011

1313

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

Source: PwC, 2011

Put on the market:100 %

Collected (including rests and

adhesions:64−80 %

Net collected (without rests and

adhesions):43−54 %

50 %

100 %

Recycling rate (put on

market): 25-31 %

Open-Loop-Recycling

(put on market):25−31 %

Energy recovery (put on market): 18−23 %

Recycling rate less than a third

compared to deposit system

Collection rate about half

compared to deposit system

1414

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.)

1515

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 cost-intensive 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.”

1616

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.”

1717

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.”

1818

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.”

1919

Fairytales and real facts about deposit systems

2020

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

2121

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

2222

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

Lie detector:NOT TRUE

Fact:Sales of different beverages vary over time – but not depending on a deposit

2323

Beer sales in Germany before and after the introduction of deposit 2003

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

Introduction of deposit on beer

Sales volume in 1.000 liter

Beer sales were going down before

the deposit

Source: GVM/UBA 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

2424

Water sales in Germany before and after the introduction of deposit 2003

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

Sales volume in 1.000 liter

Introduction of deposit on water

Water sales were going up before

the deposit

Single largest increase in sales (+9%) since

1994 in the year of the deposit introduction

Source: GVM/UBA 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011

2525

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.

2626

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.

Lie detector:NOT TRUE

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.

2727

Deposit fees and collection rates Country / State Deposit fee in AUD Collection rateGermany 0,33 98,5%Michigan (USA) 0,10 97,0%Norway 0,17-0,43 94,0%Finland 0,13-0,53 93,0%Iowa (USA) 0,05 93,0%Vermont (USA) 0,05-0,15 90,0%Denmark 0,18-0,54 88,0%Sweden 0,15-0,30 88,0%Saskatchewan (Canada) 0,05-0,38 85,0%Oregon (USA) 0,05 84,0%California (USA) 0,05-0,10 82,0%British Columbia (Canada) 0,05-0,19 80,0%Nova Scotia (Canada) 0,05-0,10 78,0%Ontario (Canada) 0,10-0,19 78,0%Alberta (Canada) 0,10-0,24 75,0%New Brunswick (Canada) 0,05-0,10 75,0%Southern Australia (Australia) 0,10 75,0%Prince Edward Island (Canada) 0,05-0,10 74,0%Massachusetts (USA) 0,05 71,0%Connecticut (USA) 0,05 70,0%Maine (USA) 0,05-0,15 70,0%New York (USA) 0,05 70,0%Newfoundland (Canada) 0,05-0,10 68,0%Quebec (Canada) 0,05-0,19 68,0%

2828

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.

2929

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.

Lie detector:NOT TRUE

Fact:Retailers can use the deposit to attract and bind customers.

3030

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.

3737

Thank you very much for your attention!

resch@duh.de