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

1. Adding some grunt to
Australian Recycling
www.boomerangalliance.org.au
Nov 2012

2. 1. 75-85% beverage container recycling rate of
high value, uncontaminated material
2. Financially sustainable with no government
or packaging industry funding
3. Network of drive through recycling centres
for range of products servicing households
and commercial sector
4. Removal of beverage container litter from
streets, parks, rivers and ocean
5. No consumer charges (other than
refundable deposit)
6. Convenient return system
7. Funds and material to grow the recycling
chain and local processing
8. New jobs, charity income

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. • 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• It‟s out of date – WRONG, more schemes each year and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).

7. Net Costs & Collection Rates – BA model net positive
100%
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

8. • 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

10.  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

11.  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

12. 60 46 Netherlands Shopper
50 Surveys, average spend
40 30
(TSN Gallup 2003)
30
20
10
0
Returned empties (1.266) Didn't return empties
(1.164)
Returned empties Didn't returned empties
60
53
50 46 45
40 37 37
33
29
30 25
20
10
0
Albert Heijn Aldi (398) Superunie Laurus (569)
(618) (845)

13.  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

14.  Consolidates materials
 Shortens the length of
transport (and in turn
costs)
 Supports the Co-Ordinator
in managing transport
 Manages delivery of
recyclate to reprocessor

15. “Councils across Australia could save $69
to $183million annually.”
Mike Ritchie, Investigation for NSW Local Gov‟t
Assoc‟n, 2012
Cost Party Option 4A Option 4B Option 2A Option 2B Option
2C
Kerbside Local ($737) ($737) $58 $26 $76
collection & Gov’ t
tpt
Recycling at Local Gov’t / ($1,964) ($1,964) $66 $118 $194
MRF Recyclers
PWC / Wright Corp Strategy- CRIS 2011
[Note: some council contracts will require transition arrangements]

16.  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

17.  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