The deposit return scheme has many flaws and duplications in return for a substantial capital investment for limited benefit. The emperor has no clothes on, there I’ve said it!

We already (via Simpler Recycling and pEPR) have both the systems and the financial mechanisms for encouraging greater recycling of single use drinks containers (plastic bottles and cans).

The benefit of a DRS is to gain a slightly higher return of cans and plastic bottles by investing in nationwide infrastructure and behaviour change. It is a very poor return for the capital and investment required, and will also have some negative environmental impacts. There are a lot better ways of investing in resource management in the UK.

There would however be some DRS benefits from avoiding some litter impacts, but more on that through our alternative suggested approach.

We propose it would be much better for the public, Councils, central government, producers and the environment if the DRS is dropped altogether and the single use drinks containers are included within pEPR.

The benefits to all the parties are numerous, and some are listed below. As noted, the two areas lost through not implementing DRS are: littering reduction, and; behaviour change. As regards behaviour change, there is likely to be both positive (higher recognition of the value of drinks containers) and a negative backlash from householders needing to take empty beer cans back to a reverse vending machine, and complaints when infrastructure fails – odours, nuisance, littering around machine (see previous blog), etc. There are also health & safety aspects, as people on low incomes (and this could include children) are incentivised to rifle through hedgerows and street litter bins to obtain value from unredeemed deposits from DRS materials. There are associated risks therefore around drug related litter, sharps and other hazards.

Furthermore, it is an equality issue. Those without a car, or elderly or disabled will have much less ability to return plastic bottles and cans to an RVM and therefore be more likely to pay the deposit for no return. How many people are really going to pop on the bus to take a bag of beer cans and plastic pop bottles back to a DRS machine? Therefore, those without their own car, which are usually those on low incomes, may also end up paying extra for drinks.

So the behaviour change aspect is potentially overstated and has both pros and cons. There is a ‘halcyon’ perspective about returning bottles like in the 70’s, but at that point in time there was no recycling collection outside your house – which is a fundamental difference!

But what about littering? This is a genuine concern, and DRS would unequivocally help reduce this problem, albeit only part of the problem, but it would stop some people littering drinks containers, and also (as stated above) incentivise some people to pick up litter for its deposit value.

Litter is not currently included in pEPR for two reasons: firstly because there is uncertainty over composition, and secondly because litter composition is expected to change post DRS. Answer = include litter costs within pEPR now! And don’t deliver DRS! A lack of composition data on litter seems an issue easily overcome, there is already litter composition data (Keep Britain Tidy), and something we looked at on our litter pick. It seems a pretty flaky reason for not obligating producers to contribute.

Simply providing EPR money to Councils however probably won’t be enough to substantially improve the impact of litter on our streets. The reason being that the Councils may well syphon the cleansing budgets accordingly (to meet other pressing needs), meaning there is no net extra money in the street cleansing budget.

Littering is a factor of understanding, motivation, infrastructure and enforcement. Many of these can be supported nationally, for example through education campaigns, provision of capital funds for binfrastructure. Therefore, our suggestion is that there is an additional national fund, raised through a supplement to the EPR obligations on littering, that contributes a fair share towards prevention of the litter from packaging products. The level of which should be sufficient to help reduce littering behaviours and improve litter bin provision, for example it may be the cost of the littering EPR obligation to the Councils in the UK + 10%, for the national fund.

Therefore, the overall aim of reducing litter on the ground would be improved without the need for RVMs in every shop and the duplicated collection infrastructure and financial / administrative system.

How would this alternative model affect stakeholders:

• Central Government: Pro’s: no inflation shock from a DRS scheme on single use drinks containers; less administration; no negative backlash on behaviour change; no infrastructure negative press / issues around nationwide installations of RVM, better UK infrastructure for street litter. Cons: marginally less recycling; a policy U turn.
• Local Government: Pro’s: no negative impact on recyclate streams collected (unlike with DRS); No need to change MRF contracts; No loss of income; Some littering benefit; proper recompense for street cleansing / littering of packaging; retain recyclate from all household waste; no need to manage littering / street cleansing issues associated with many RVM sites; better local litter bin infrastructure. Cons: potentially less littering benefit than DRS (although it could be the reverse).
• Public: Pro’s: No requirement to make additional journeys to RVMs; less discrimination around access to RVMs (i.e. not being able to redeem deposits); No (or limited / like other EPR) increase in purchase price for drinks; Time saving; Avoids storage / nuisance; avoids potential bin diving / litter pick hazards. Cons: none.
• Packaging Producers: Pro’s: Only one compliance system; no unintended packaging transfer between regimes; no need to fund a major nationwide capital infrastructure operation via additional (redeemable) deposits on their products / no need for +20p on each item they sell; less scope for fraud from thousands of RVM. Cons: greater cost for pEPR with inclusion of street cleansing / litter operations; additional cost of the national litter prevention fund.
• The ‘Environment’: Pro’s: No need to add nationwide infrastructure and associated imbedded carbon impacts; No need to have duplicated logistics operation for movement of tiny quantities of recyclate from thousands of new locations; No need for additional journeys of a bag of recyclate from houses to an RVM (which would occur in some circumstances under DRS); A reduction in litter on the ground (via national fund) which would affect more materials than just single use drinks cans and plastic bottles. Cons: less interventionalist behaviour change on the public which could yield other environmental benefits (or converse); potentially more littering than via a DRS (depending on national campaign / fund effectiveness); marginally less recycling than via a DRS (with associated carbon benefit).