Deposit return scheme: Verpact pivots and is suddenly in favour of mandatory take-back

Today de Volkskrant brings remarkable news: Verpact suddenly claims to be in favour of a mandatory take-back system for bottles and cans. With this, Verpact has changed its stance, and this is likely due to the poor collection rates. One of the major inconveniences of the deposit system is that consumers almost always have to go to the supermarket to return their bottles and cans. If you buy a drink on the go or on location, you have to carry your packaging with you and take it to the supermarket. Only then do you get your deposit back. When the deposit on bottles and cans was introduced, it was highly logical to oblige points of sale to accept returns. Fair Resource Foundation has always advocated for a mandatory take-back system, and many organisations, such as municipalities and environmental organisations, wanted this too. But, as an investigation by the NOS showed, a successful lobby prevented this from happening. Today, years after the introduction of deposits on bottles (as of July 2021) and cans (as of April 2023), Verpact is failing to meet the legal target of 90%. According to de Volkskrant, collection rates rose to 77 per cent for plastic bottles and 84 per cent for cans. The mandatory take-back system should help Verpact reach the 90% target, thereby preventing litter and improving material recycling. Verpact has since published the figures on its own website. Verpact is therefore now in favour of a mandatory take-back system: "As far as we are concerned, this really does not need to apply to the snack bar around the corner," says director Hester Klein Lankhorst in de Volkskrant. "But larger locations where bottles and cans go over the counter could easily be obliged to take them back empty." As far as we are concerned, however, there should be as few exceptions as possible. In this article, we recently described six ways in which the deposit system can be improved. Dairy Verpact also says it is in favour of a mandatory deposit on juice bottles. But, tit for tat, and so Verpact wants something in return. Specifically, Klein Lankhorst wants dairy bottles to no longer count towards achieving the legal target. Taking back and recycling these bottles is claimed to be unhygienic and complicated. By no longer including them under the target, it becomes easier for Verpact to meet that goal. However, this wastes valuable raw materials. Fair Resource Foundation considers it undesirable to remove dairy bottles from the target and relies on Reloop, which states that dairy packaging is indeed often excluded from deposit systems, but that Germany, among others, has added dairy. And what does our own common sense tell us: in the past, the milkman could also just collect glass bottles – why would take-back not be possible now? Related tags More on this topic

Today de Volkskrant brings remarkable news: Verpact suddenly claims to be in favour of a mandatory take-back system for bottles and cans. With this, Verpact has changed its stance, and this is likely due to the poor collection rates.

One of the major inconveniences of the deposit system is that consumers almost always have to go to the supermarket to return their bottles and cans. If you buy a drink on the go or on location, you have to carry your packaging with you and take it to the supermarket. Only then do you get your deposit back. When the deposit on bottles and cans was introduced, it was highly logical to oblige points of sale to accept returns. Fair Resource Foundation has always advocated for a mandatory take-back system, and many organisations, such as municipalities and environmental organisations, wanted this too. But, as an investigation by the NOS showed, a successful lobby prevented this from happening.

Today, years after the introduction of deposits on bottles (as of July 2021) and cans (as of April 2023), Verpact is failing to meet the legal target of 90%. According to de Volkskrant, collection rates rose to 77 per cent for plastic bottles and 84 per cent for cans. The mandatory take-back system should help Verpact reach the 90% target, thereby preventing litter and improving material recycling. Verpact has since published the figures on its own website.

Verpact is therefore now in favour of a mandatory take-back system: "As far as we are concerned, this really does not need to apply to the snack bar around the corner," says director Hester Klein Lankhorst in de Volkskrant. "But larger locations where bottles and cans go over the counter could easily be obliged to take them back empty." As far as we are concerned, however, there should be as few exceptions as possible. In this article, we recently described six ways in which the deposit system can be improved.

Dairy

Verpact also says it is in favour of a mandatory deposit on juice bottles. But, tit for tat, and so Verpact wants something in return. Specifically, Klein Lankhorst wants dairy bottles to no longer count towards achieving the legal target. Taking back and recycling these bottles is claimed to be unhygienic and complicated. By no longer including them under the target, it becomes easier for Verpact to meet that goal. However, this wastes valuable raw materials.

Fair Resource Foundation considers it undesirable to remove dairy bottles from the target and relies on Reloop, which states that dairy packaging is indeed often excluded from deposit systems, but that Germany, among others, has added dairy. And what does our own common sense tell us: in the past, the milkman could also just collect glass bottles – why would take-back not be possible now?

Related tags

More on this topic