For and against: mandatory deposit on beverage cans and beverage bottles
A motion in the National Council calls for a mandatory deposit on all beverage cans and bottles. Swiss Recycling has studied the impact of the deposit on various sectors. The conclusion is clear: the deposit would destroy tried and tested recycling solutions without any need for ecological added value.
National Councilor Alois Gmür (CVP, SZ) wants to combat littering and reduce the consumption of resources from beverage containers by imposing a deposit on beverage cans and bottles. To this end, he has submitted a parliamentary initiative on June 21, 2019. In view of the many misinformation about the deposit, the umbrella organization Swiss Recycling felt compelled to examine the current facts and compile them in a report.
Change in the take-back system does not create any ecological added value
The deposit is used to organize the collection. It is a financial incentive to ensure that beverage containers are returned undamaged to a collection point - normally a deposit machine. A deposit is therefore essential for reusable systems. However, a deposit can also be levied on disposable packaging ("one-way deposit"), which would have to be done as a result of Alois Gmür's parliamentary initiative.
The deposit itself has no influence on whether a used beverage container is refilled or recycled. Experience from other countries (e.g., Germany) also shows that the introduction of a deposit does not lead to an increase in the proportion of reusable containers. The deposit has no influence on resource consumption.
Consumers lose
With a mandatory deposit, the return of packaging is only possible at points of sale - i.e. in retail stores during normal opening hours. Because the deposit could also only be paid out there. This means that the popular collection points at train stations, at municipalities, in offices, schools and leisure facilities would disappear. The number of return options would drop from 100,000 today to around 7,000. Swiss Recycling has shown what this would mean in concrete terms using comparative maps of the Basel, Geneva, Lugano, St. Gallen and Zurich regions. The loss of collection points would be particularly noticeable in on-the-go consumption, in the evenings and in rural regions with few retailers. For consumers, recycling would become much more cumbersome. Swiss Recycling therefore assumes that neither an increase in collection volumes nor a noticeable reduction in the littering problem can be expected as a result.
Conclusion: The deposit is not a solution for Switzerland
Swiss Recycling concludes that the argumentation of the deposit advocates does not stand up to current scientific findings. For countries without functioning take-back systems, the deposit can be a suitable instrument to promote collection. For Switzerland, however, with its highly developed recycling systems, the deposit is not a suitable instrument to reduce littering or resource consumption. Due to the expensive and maintenance-intensive deposit machines, the cost of taking back beverage containers would increase massively. The cost-benefit ratio for recycling beverage containers would decrease in return. Swiss Recycling therefore recommends that Parliament reject Alois Gmür's parliamentary initiative.
