Can the success of the plastic bag levy be replicated with bottles and cans?

The Re-turn scheme launched today puts us among the select group of EU states – roughly a third – to have a deposit-based scheme for recycling drink bottles and cans.

Under the scheme, consumers who buy a plastic bottle or aluminium can featuring the Re-turn logo will pay a fully refundable deposit of between 15 cent (150ml to 500ml) and 25 cent (containers above 500ml up to three litres).

But we are still late to the party. The bulk of the existing EU schemes came into effect 20 years ago or more. Sweden introduced its scheme in 1984 – no surprise there. The Finns rather resent the Swedes’ claim to be first and say they introduced one in the 1950s, but didn’t brag about it. Again, no surprise there.

And according to The Grocer magazine, the German system – Europe’s largest and most technologically advanced, needless to say – is spectacularly efficient, with 98 per cent of containers collected.

Housing is the missing link in the debate about immigration

---

Harvey Weinstein’s conviction overturned: is that it for #MeToo?

---

Parents must guide how sex education is taught in schools

---

Migration row: Have we forgotten these are people we’re talking about?

---

The French, it seems, have shrugged their shoulders at the notion of such a scheme and Italy has one ready to go but has not passed the enabling legislation. Schemes in Britain seem to have been scuppered by a mixture of political interference and pressure from big business.

Better late than never for Ireland then, but it looks like we have a job on our hands if we want to claim the title of best small country for recycling plastic bottles and tin cans

So far, so in line with European stereotypes.

Better late than never for Ireland then, but it looks like we have a job on our hands if we want to claim the title of best small country for recycling plastic bottles and tin cans.

There will no doubt be teething problems. Recycling machines will break down. Despite hundreds of hours going to making them foolproof, the fools will once again have been underestimated. Someone will find a way to stick a Coke can into one sideways and jam it up.

Some retailers – particularly small ones – may opt out of the scheme on the basis that it is impractical. And they have a point. It’s hard to see yourself queuing up at the counter in the local Spar to get a 25 cent voucher that has to be spent in the shop. Worse still, it hard to see yourself standing patiently in line as six schoolboys queue up one by one to get a refund for their lunchtime soft drink bottle. More prosaically, the small retailers point to the difficulties of handling and storing the bottles and cans.

[ Deposit return scheme: Who gets the money if I don’t collect? Can I bring Tesco bottles back to Aldi? ]

But what will really determine the scheme’s success or failure is the extent to which the public take it to their hearts. There are high hopes that it will follow in the footsteps of the plastic bag levy introduced in 2002.

Despite initial public scepticism and concern on the part of retailers, the plastic bag levy is a textbook example of how to influence public behaviour. It has been the subject of numerous academic studies. One study led by UCD academics concluded: “We are not aware of another tax that induces such an enthusiasm and affection from those who are liable to pay it.” Most of us are familiar with the pang of guilt when we buy a bag at the till because we forgot to bring our own.

There were plenty of arguments in advance of its introduction for why the levy would not work, according to the researchers.

Retailers said they, and not the Government, would feel the wrath of shoppers who had to fork out for the bags. They also claimed that encouraging people to bring their owns bags into the shop – one of the primary objectives of the levy – would make it easier for them to shoplift. Another concern was that reduced use of plastic bags would have hygiene implications, particularly where fresh meat and other raw foods were involved.

The plastic bag levy was very much a stick-based system, whilst the deposit scheme relies mostly on a carrot – but not much of a carrot. The suspicion is that the former works best with the public here

But the biggest obstacle was anticipated to be public resistance to paying. While people told researchers they were in favour of a levy in principle, they were opposed in practice to paying a realistic price for the bags. Research done for the Government at the time showed that less than one in 10 people said they were willing to pay the levy if it exceeded 7.6 cent. The price was set at 15 cent and the rest is history. Hopefully the same trick can be repeated with Re-turn.

[ The deposit return scheme: everything you need to know ]

There are differences of course. The plastic bag levy was very much a stick-based system, whilst the deposit scheme relies mostly on a carrot – but not much of a carrot. The suspicion is that the former works best with the public here.

That said, one of the main reasons to which the success of the levy scheme is attributed is its marketing as an anti-litter measure that capitalised on public concern over the number of plastic bags strewn on hedges and beaches across the country. There was an almost immediate and tangible benefit for everyone in this regard as usage dropped after the levy was introduced.

Single-use drink containers are also a litter problem, but the Re-turn scheme seems to be hanging its hat more on the wider environmental arguments for recycling. Presumably the tactics have been brainstormed and focus-grouped to within an inch of their lives. It remains to be seen whether this approach resonates with the public.