Is the Deposit Refund System for Lead Batteries in Delhi and the National Capital Region Effective?
Lead acid batteries generate hazardous waste in the form of lead, with serious environmental and health implications. These batteries are recyclable and the present Deposit Refund System for recycling operating in Delhi provides a discount to consumers when they purchase a new battery and return used batteries to retailers. The retailers in turn determine whether the batteries will be recycled in an environment-friendly or unfriendly manner by selling them to manufacturers or informal sector scrap dealers, who then sell them to un-registered smelters. This study finds that that the economic instrument that brings used batteries into the recycling system works exceptionally well. However, organized lead recycling is undertaken only in a limited manner. Rather, retailers prefer to sell used batteries to the informal sector because they obtain higher prices, and incur lower storage costs and taxes. Current rules prevent scrap dealers from selling batteries to regulated smelters. Relaxing these rules would reduce raw material shortfalls currently experienced by the sector and bring more batteries into the formal recycling market. In addition, an alternate policy instrument to consider is a green tax on batteries coupled with a partial or complete refund when the manufacturer ensures environment-friendly recycling.
|Date of creation:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics PO Box: 8975, EPC: 1056 Kathmandu, Nepal|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kant, Shashi, 2000. "A dynamic approach to forest regimes in developing economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 287-300, February.
- Holden, Stein T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Wik, Mette, 1998. "Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 105-130, February.
- Marc Jacobson & Joel De Castro & Vianca Aliaga & Julio Romero & MAllison Davis, 1998. "The Role of Tenure Security and Private Time Preference in Neotropical Deforestation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 162-170.
- Adger, W. Neil & Luttrell, Cecilia, 2000. "Property rights and the utilisation of wetlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 75-89, October.
- Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
- Dayton-Johnson, Jeff, 2000. "Determinants of collective action on the local commons: a model with evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 181-208, June.
- Alexander Karaivanov, 2009. "Heterogeneity, returns to scale, and collective action," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 771-807, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:snd:wpaper:68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anuradhak)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.