CE review of the deposit refund system cost study; background information

A deposit on plastic bottles ensures that almost all empty bottles are returned. This is undisputedly a collection system with the highest possible response, the least pollution, and the greatest benefit to the environment. According to the former State Secretary for the Environment, it could nevertheless be abolished "because the business community wants it" and because this is said to be "by far the most expensive collection system for plastic bottles".

Rob Buurman

2 Apr 2014

Deposit on plastic bottles ensures that almost all empty bottles are returned. This is undisputedly a collection system with the highest possible response, the least pollution and the greatest benefit for the environment. According to the former State Secretary for the Environment, it should nevertheless be abolished “because the business community wants it” and because this would be “the absolute most expensive collection system for plastic bottles”. Atsma based this on a study funded by the food industry. It was suggested that the study was conducted by researchers from Wageningen University, but it turned out to be a private company (BV) operating under the wings of Wageningen University (read more about it here).

Deposit not the most expensive, but the cheapest collection system

The new study on the costs of the deposit system by CE Delft (view here) shows that ‘Wageningen’ has heavily exaggerated almost all major cost items, by 20%, 60% or even 100%. For the whole of the Netherlands, for example, ‘Wageningen’ calculated with retail spaces costing €250 per m2 per year. In reality, however, retail space in large parts of the Netherlands costs less than €125 per m2 per year, while even in the most expensive region (around Amsterdam) the average price is below €200. An amount of €250 per m2 is only realistic for prime locations in Amsterdam. On the other hand, the revenues from collected empty bottles were underestimated by more than 10 million euros.

CE Delft's cost calculation therefore results in significantly lower costs for the deposit system than ‘Wageningen’. Recycling Netwerk concludes that the costs of the deposit system for plastic bottles are at least half of what was presented to the House of Representatives at the time. This means that those costs are at the same level as the costs of the alternative collection of mixed plastics, which is much less beneficial from an environmental point of view.

In addition, the CE study shows that if the deposit on plastic bottles is abolished, various costs will be shifted to the deposit system for beer bottles. The deposit on beer bottles could therefore become the next victim. And finally, Recycling Netwerk fears that the costs used in the calculation also conceal a – kept secret – annual fund formation of several million euros. That would mean that the calculation of the costs of the deposit system should come out another 20% lower.

WC-eend (We of WC-eend advise WC-eend)

Two years ago, doubts were already raised in the House of Representatives regarding Atsma's cost analysis. The House of Representatives was supported in this by the critical evaluation of the draft report from Wageningen, which had been submitted by Recycling Netwerk. The House of Representatives demanded a response from the State Secretary to Recycling Netwerk's evaluation. However, Atsma was only willing to have this done by ‘Wageningen’ itself, which was characterised by MP Sjoera Dikkers (PvdA) as “We from WC-eend recommend WC-eend” (a Dutch idiom for self-regulation/marking one's own homework).

Subsequently, shortly before the next House of Representatives debate, a revised version of the ‘Wageningen’ report was presented, in which the cost items were reduced on almost all critical points. In addition, however, a number of other corrections were also introduced, maintaining the conclusion that the deposit system costs about 6 cents per bottle. The House of Representatives then agreed to the Packaging Framework Agreement, in which, among other things, it was decided to ‘release’ deposits under certain conditions.

KIDV

In accordance with this Framework Agreement, further policy development in the area of ‘environment and packaging’ has now been delegated by the Ministry of the Environment to the Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging (KIDV). This KIDV is fully funded by businesses and has commissioned a significant part of the research activities to the same “BV WC-eend” from Wageningen.

In the wake of the uproar surrounding the embarrassing cost study by ‘Wageningen’, the credibility of the KIDV is also at stake. Due to the KIDV approach, interested businesses have a major influence, both directly and indirectly, on the development of environmental policy for packaging. Recycling Netwerk advocates for a strong limitation of that influence and for an approach that is as independent and transparent as possible in the further development of environmental policy in the area of packaging.

The CE review can be found under: http://www.ce.nl/publicatie/kosten_statiegeldsystemen_voor_grote_pet-flessen/1477

Response of environmental professors: http://www.echteheld.nl/nieuws/564/milieuhoogleraren_pleiten_voor_handhaving_statiegeld

Newspapers:

http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3627131/2014/04/02/Politiek-ernstig-misleid-bij-afschaffen-statiegeld.dhtml

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3627156/2014/04/02/Tweede-Kamer-ernstig-misleid-door-statiegeld-rapport.dhtml

http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/3587/POLITIEK-BINNENLAND/a

Deposit not the most expensive, but the cheapest collection system