CB BA style


Published on

Explaining the modern container deposit system proposed for Australia by the Boomerang Alliance.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Need a White BA Logo (transparent logo)
  • Jeff to cover here
  • Jeff to complete - Summarise the current best political insight and what we think the decision will come down to
  • Jeff to complete this slide (*key points only) DW will tidy up
  • Jeff to open up
  • Dave Here
  • CB BA style

    1. 1. Adding some grunt to Australian Recycling www.boomerangalliance.org.au Nov 2012
    2. 2. 1. 75-85% beverage container recycling rate of high value, uncontaminated material2. Financially sustainable with no government or packaging industry funding3. Network of drive through recycling centres for range of products servicing households and commercial sector4. Removal of beverage container litter from streets, parks, rivers and ocean5. No consumer charges (other than refundable deposit)6. Convenient return system7. Funds and material to grow the recycling chain and local processing8. New jobs, charity income
    3. 3.  Public support doesn‟t waiver over many years (82% in latest Newspoll) Industry alternatives/fear campaigns fail to convince community and governments, which refuse to drop CD from decision agenda After 10 year community campaign, environment ministers on cusp of 2013 decision Bi-partisan political support in some states and territories Campaign gone viral across all demographics – young, senior, income, voting and education groups
    4. 4. • Kerbside operations harmed – WRONG say last 5 state and federal gov‟t inquiries*• Families hit $300pa – WRONG, price data false^ & our CD system is cost-neutral• More bins the answer – WRONG as unproven and contaminated (and councils pay for lift, transport, landfill and replacement costs)• It‟s out of date – WRONG, more schemes each year and Boomerang‟s is modern version – unlike Sth Australia‟s (& NT)• Fails cost-benefit test ($1.4b over 20yrs!) – WRONG, CRIS didn‟t quantify many benefits; modeled costly system and included disputed $447m „participation‟ costs• Benefits and costs unproven – WRONG, it‟s based on real experience around world• It‟s a tax – WRONG, it‟s a deposit you choose to redeem* Some council contracts will require transition arrangements^ AFGC assumes all prices rise by 20cents but this has not occurred in NT and half is the deposit . Senate Inquiry says „weak methodology and poor data‟ (2012).
    5. 5. Net Costs & Collection Rates – BA model net positive100% Norway Alberta Sweden Finland Michigan Maine Newfoundland B A B.C. California New Sth Aust. Recovery Rate Hawaii York Nova Scotia NB: Where the beverage industry runs the scheme it is assumed that unredeemed deposits are used to offset the cost of 0% the scheme - 0 Net Cost + Sources: CM Consulting , BottleBill.org, & pers coms
    6. 6. • One independent Co-Ordinator, not multiple – and not run by beverage companies (no conflict of interest) – bottlers only provide deposit• Containers not sorted by many brands, only material• Lower handling costs because more efficient with automation (reverse vending machines, RVM) and bulk sorting machines• Significant transport savings due to compaction before transport and no travel to brand centres• Unredeemed deposits used to support system (not beverage company profits) and with material sales produce surplus for more recycling• Accurate data provision via barcodes simplifies system admin and (eft) financial payments• Household collection centres more conveniently located – no extra travel – and open outside working hours and on weekends• Financially supports new commercial and industrial recycling
    7. 7.  The Convenience Point is the everyday consumer interface Uses automation (RVM) to best manage a high number of (low volume) transactions for retail voucher Will be found in or near every shopping centre (1800+ locations around Australia) Established in car parks – not in-shop, so retailer space not impacted Car park owners earn $18 - $24k per annum RVM owner keeps site tidy (incl bin for other waste) and machines working
    8. 8.  Easy and quick interface with consumers and provide voucher Accept all major container materials (glass, aluminium, steel, PET, HDPE, other plastics, LPB etc.) Sort by material, colour, & type (using barcode + shape); collect excess liquid Reject non-container and non-deposit and filled containers Compact containers for efficient transport and notify when “bins” full Link to Central Coordinator database and retailer point of sale systems Provide comprehensive information to government and industry for audit Over 100,000 RVMs worldwide Automatic updates for introduction of new containers
    9. 9. 60 46 Netherlands Shopper50 Surveys, average spend40 30 (TSN Gallup 2003)302010 0 Returned empties (1.266) Didnt return empties (1.164) Returned empties Didnt returned empties60 5350 46 4540 37 37 33 2930 252010 0 Albert Heijn Aldi (398) Superunie Laurus (569) (618) (845)
    10. 10.  Is designed to be flexible and provide a range of currently unviable services, not only for beverage containers: ◦ Affordable recycling for SME‟s, commercial sector (via redeemed deposit) ◦ A convenient point for households to dispose of problem wastes Existing MRFs and transfer stations can be adapted Functions like the wholesaler in a traditional supply chain taking transactions with much higher volumes Fast turnaround for MSW and C&I redemption Will also be established for rural and regional areas where no current service Refunds via EFT to repeat redeemers
    11. 11.  Consolidates materials Shortens the length of transport (and in turn costs) Supports the Co-Ordinator in managing transport Manages delivery of recyclate to reprocessor
    12. 12. “Councils across Australia could save $69 to $183million annually.” Mike Ritchie, Investigation for NSW Local Gov‟t Assoc‟n, 2012Cost Party Option 4A Option 4B Option 2A Option 2B Option 2CKerbside Local ($737) ($737) $58 $26 $76collection & Gov’ ttptRecycling at Local Gov’t / ($1,964) ($1,964) $66 $118 $194MRF Recyclers PWC / Wright Corp Strategy- CRIS 2011 [Note: some council contracts will require transition arrangements]
    13. 13.  System revenue from sale of the material collected (premium value), unredeemed deposits^ and interest – 5.2c per container System costs (handling fees, transport, retail incentive, Co-Ordinator fee) – 4.2 – 4.9 cents per container Surplus of 1-.3 cents pc^ accumulated via initial ramp up and after 80% recovery achieved* Based on actual systems – detailed breakdown available
    14. 14.  There is a surplus when CD schemes are introduced (high % of unredeemed in initial years) - in excess of $1billion for Australia + an average $38million p.a. ongoing We believe that we should fund: ◦ A bounty scheme – rewarding reprocessors for increasing local recycling ◦ Offset costs of MSW recycling for regional and rural local government ◦ Non-beverage container litter programs ◦ Support for council contract transition