Cd ba style_032013


Published on

  • 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 this slide (*key points only) DW will tidy up
  • Jeff to open up
  • Cd ba style_032013

    1. 1. Adding some grunt toAustralian 2013
    2. 2. 1. 75-85% beverage container recycling rate ofhigh value, uncontaminated material2. Financially sustainable with no governmentor packaging industry funding3. Network of drive through recycling centresfor range of products servicing householdsand commercial sector4. Removal of beverage container litter fromstreets, parks, rivers and ocean5. No consumer charges (other thanrefundable deposit)6. Convenient return system7. Funds and material to grow the recyclingchain and local processing8. New jobs, charity incomeThese can‟t be achieved by other alternatives.
    3. 3. • Kerbside operations harmed – WRONG say last 5 state and federalgov‟t inquiries*• Families hit $300pa – WRONG, price data false^ & our CD system iscost-neutral• More bins the answer – WRONG as unproven and contaminated (andcouncils pay for lift, transport, landfill and replacement costs)• It‟s out of date – WRONG, more schemes each year andBoomerang‟s is modern version – unlike Sth Australia‟s (& NT)• Fails cost-benefit test ($1.4b over 20yrs!) – WRONG, CRIS didn‟tquantify many benefits; modeled costly system and includeddisputed $447m „participation‟ costs• Benefits and costs unproven – WRONG, it‟s based on realexperience 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 thedeposit . Senate Inquiry says „weak methodology and poor data‟ (2012).
    4. 4. RecoveryRate100%0%Net Cost0- +Nova ScotiaNewfoundlandCaliforniaB.C.AlbertaHawaiiSth Aust.SwedenNorwayFinlandNewYorkMaineNB: Where the beverage industry runs thescheme it is assumed that unredeemeddeposits are used to offset the cost ofthe schemeNet Costs & Collection Rates – BA model net positiveSources: CM Consulting ,, & pers comsMichiganBA
    5. 5. • One independent Co-Ordinator, not multiple – and not run bybeverage companies (no conflict of interest) – bottlers onlyprovide 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 transportand no travel to brand centres• Unredeemed deposits used to support system (not beveragecompany profits) and with material sales, interest earned producesurplus for more recycling• Accurate data provision via barcodes simplifies system admin and(eft) financial payments• Household collection centres more conveniently located – no extratravel – and open outside working hours and on weekends• Financially supports new commercial and industrial recycling
    6. 6.  The Convenience Point is the everyday consumer interface Uses automation (RVM) to best manage a high number of (lowvolume) transactions for retail voucher Will be found in or near every shopping centre (1800+ locationsaround Australia) Established in car parks – not in-shop, so retailer space notimpacted Car park owners earn $18 - $24k per annum RVM owner keeps site tidy (incl bin for other waste) and machinesworking
    7. 7.  Easy and quick interface with consumers andprovide voucher Accept all major container materials(glass, aluminium, steel, PET, HDPE, otherplastics, LPB etc.) Sort by material, colour, & type (using barcode+ shape); collect excess liquid Reject non-container and non-deposit andfilled containers Compact containers for efficient transport andnotify when “bins” full Link to Central Coordinator database andretailer point of sale systems Provide comprehensive information togovernment and industry for audit Automatic updates for introduction of newcontainersOver 100,000 RVMs worldwide
    8. 8.  Is designed to be flexible and provide a range of currently unviableservices, not only for beverage containers:◦ Affordable recycling for SME‟s, commercial sector (via redeemeddeposit)◦ 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 takingtransactions with much higher volumes Fast turnaround for MSW and C&I redemption Will also be established for rural and regional areas where no currentservice Refunds via EFT to repeat redeemers
    9. 9.  Will beverage prices rise above the 10centdeposit? No. The Boomerang Model isdesigned to operate at a surplus aftercovering all CDS costs. What‟s the cost to the economy? The 2011CRIS for environment ministers estimated$1.4b over 20 years.* That‟s $3.18 perperson per year or 6cents a week. *note: we believe this figure overstates the costs of CD.
    10. 10.  System revenue from sale of the materialcollected (premium value), unredeemed deposits^and interest – 5.2c per container System costs (handling fees, transport, retailincentive, Co-Ordinator fee) – 4.2 – 4.9 cents percontainer Surplus of 1-.3 cents pc^ accumulated via initial ramp up and after 80% recovery achieved* Based on actual systems – detailed breakdown available
    11. 11.  There is a surplus when CD schemesare introduced (higher % ofunredeemed in initial years) - inexcess of $1billion for Australia + an average $38million p.a. ongoingplus material sales and interest We believe that we should fund:◦ A bounty scheme – rewarding reprocessorsfor increasing local recycling◦ Offset costs of MSW recycling for regionaland rural local government◦ Non-beverage container litter programs◦ Support for council contract transition