Evaluation of the reuse measures

Europe is striving towards a circular economy where reuse is the norm and the throwaway society is pushed back. The Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) contain various measures to ban or reduce single-use packaging. The Dutch ministerial regulation on single-use plastic products from 2022 (a result of the Single-Use Plastics Directive) aims to reduce the use of single-use cups and food containers by 40% in 2026 compared to 2022. The regulation was recently evaluated and there is a proposal by State Secretary Chris Jansen (PVV) of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to amend the legislation. This proposal evokes both support and resistance. Among other things, we are wondering: can the SUP levy not be regulated via the EPR Packaging? Clear legislation essential for a successful reuse transition The transition to reuse, in which many millions have been invested by innovative companies striving for a future with less waste and litter, was delayed in 2023. A passed motion by the VVD led to a temporary halt on enforcement by the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) on the use of single-use packaging containing plastic that is banned under the legislation. This created uncertainty in the market, causing investments in reusable alternatives to stall. A successful transition requires clear legislation and enforcement, so that companies dare to invest and a level playing field is created in which reusable packaging becomes competitive with single-use. Proposal from the government to amend current legislation The evaluation of the ministerial regulation on single-use plastic products in December 2024 resulted in the following proposals for amendment: Reuse becomes mandatory in closed environments, such as offices, restaurants, etc. The exemption rule to use single-use packaging under certain conditions will only be allowed at closed events. (current situation: the exemption for single-use packaging under certain conditions applies to all closed environments) The reuse measures for delivery and supermarkets will disappear. (current situation: offering a reusable alternative for delivery is mandatory, and supermarkets must charge an SUP levy on certain plastic-containing single-use packaging) A fixed, mandatory SUP levy (Single-Use Plastic) of €0.25 on all plastic-containing single-use packaging for on-the-go consumption (current situation: mandatory SUP levy, but the amount may be determined by the final seller) SUP policy must push forward: no more unnecessary exceptions Tightening the regulations and increasing the SUP levy are steps in the right direction. Even though an exception to the reuse obligation for closed events is not necessary. A closed context is pre-eminently perfect for setting up a reuse system. Particularly at events, the visitor experience can be fully tailored to this. That is why the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) includes an obligation for on-site consumption from 2030, without exceptions for single-use packaging, including those made of rPET. Delivery can also play a role in the reuse transition, as our southern neighbours are proving with the Boomerang project in Mechelen. For supermarkets, reusable alternatives for certain plastic-containing single-use packaging are indeed limited, but by completely removing the incentive to switch, the (litter) waste generated by the sector is not reduced. And it is precisely supermarket packaging for to-go that we find a lot of in litter. Replacing single-use with single-use does not solve the (litter) waste problem Material substitution keeps single-use in place State Secretary Jansen proposes a fixed SUP levy – an additional charge – of a €0.25 levy on plastic-containing single-use packaging for to-go consumption, which does not have to be mandatorily invested in reuse. This makes single-use plastic packaging a business model: a perverse financial incentive. The consumer pays, and their money does not contribute to a reusable alternative. While the goal of the measure is to make reuse "the norm". Former State Secretary Heijnen indicated that she trusted entrepreneurs to invest the levy in reusable alternatives. In practice, this does not happen. Therefore, Plastic Soup Surfer Merijn Tinga – with whom we previously drew attention to single-use coffee cups and reusable alternatives via the Mission Reuse Expedition – and Zwerfinator Dirk Groot are calling for the abolition of the SUP levy. They expect the SUP levy to have a minimal

Europe is striving towards a circular economy where reuse is the norm and the throwaway society is pushed back. The Single-Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) contain various measures to ban or reduce single-use packaging. The Dutch ministerial regulation on single-use plastic products from 2022 (a result of the Single-Use Plastics Directive) aims to reduce the use of single-use cups and food containers by 40% in 2026 compared to 2022. The regulation was recently evaluated and there is a proposal by State Secretary Chris Jansen (PVV) of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to amend the legislation. This proposal evokes both support and resistance. Among other things, we are wondering: can the SUP levy not be regulated via the EPR Packaging?

Clear legislation essential for a successful reuse transition

The transition to reuse, in which many millions have been invested by innovative companies striving for a future with less waste and litter, was delayed in 2023. A passed motion by the VVD led to a temporary halt on enforcement by the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) on the use of single-use packaging containing plastic that is banned under the legislation. This created uncertainty in the market, causing investments in reusable alternatives to stall. A successful transition requires clear legislation and enforcement, so that companies dare to invest and a level playing field is created in which reusable packaging becomes competitive with single-use.

Proposal from the government to amend current legislation

The evaluation of the ministerial regulation on single-use plastic products in December 2024 resulted in the following proposals for amendment:

Reuse becomes mandatory in closed environments, such as offices, restaurants, etc. The exemption rule to use single-use packaging under certain conditions will only be allowed at closed events. (current situation: the exemption for single-use packaging under certain conditions applies to all closed environments)

The reuse measures for delivery and supermarkets will disappear. (current situation: offering a reusable alternative for delivery is mandatory, and supermarkets must charge an SUP levy on certain plastic-containing single-use packaging)

A fixed, mandatory SUP levy (Single-Use Plastic) of €0.25 on all plastic-containing single-use packaging for on-the-go consumption (current situation: mandatory SUP levy, but the amount may be determined by the final seller)

SUP policy must push forward: no more unnecessary exceptions

Tightening the regulations and increasing the SUP levy are steps in the right direction. Even though an exception to the reuse obligation for closed events is not necessary. A closed context is pre-eminently perfect for setting up a reuse system. Particularly at events, the visitor experience can be fully tailored to this. That is why the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) includes an obligation for on-site consumption from 2030, without exceptions for single-use packaging, including those made of rPET. Delivery can also play a role in the reuse transition, as our southern neighbours are proving with the Boomerang project in Mechelen. For supermarkets, reusable alternatives for certain plastic-containing single-use packaging are indeed limited, but by completely removing the incentive to switch, the (litter) waste generated by the sector is not reduced. And it is precisely supermarket packaging for to-go that we find a lot of in litter.

Replacing single-use with single-use does not solve the (litter) waste problem

Material substitution keeps single-use in place

State Secretary Jansen proposes a fixed SUP levy – an additional charge – of a €0.25 levy on plastic-containing single-use packaging for to-go consumption, which does not have to be mandatorily invested in reuse. This makes single-use plastic packaging a business model: a perverse financial incentive. The consumer pays, and their money does not contribute to a reusable alternative. While the goal of the measure is to make reuse "the norm". Former State Secretary Heijnen indicated that she trusted entrepreneurs to invest the levy in reusable alternatives. In practice, this does not happen.

Therefore, Plastic Soup Surfer Merijn Tinga – with whom we previously drew attention to single-use coffee cups and reusable alternatives via the Mission Reuse Expedition – and Zwerfinator Dirk Groot are calling for the abolition of the SUP levy. They expect the SUP levy to have a minimal effect on reuse and see more effective measures. Among other things, they call for alternative measures to reduce plastic single-use packaging: a ban on plastic single-use packaging for which plastic-free alternatives are already on the market. In doing so, they use their 'discard matrix', with which the litter risk of to-go packaging was mapped after research in thousands of public waste bins. Tinga and Groot want the responsibility to lie with the providers of the products. Various politicians and companies are now using their call to argue solely for the abolition of measures surrounding plastic single-use packaging, and to stimulate single-use alternatives made of other materials such as paper/cardboard. However, this ignores the goal of the Dutch government: reusable packaging as the new norm. The litter activists share that goal, which we will not achieve with so-called material substitution: maintaining the throwaway society in which, instead of plastic, we increasingly see single-use paper packaging.

The PPWR sets prevention targets: we must generate less and less waste per person over the coming years. Reuse is one of the most effective strategies to achieve this reduction. Therefore, member states may go further than the proposed measures in terms of reuse targets and the level of the mandatory EPR percentage for reuse. Product bans for plastic packaging per member state are not allowed, not even within the SUPD from 1 January 2025. They are, however, allowed for other materials, such as paper. Therefore, it is not useful to focus blindly on bans on plastic single-use packaging and a shift to paper single-use packaging, but rather to start setting up local, national, and international reuse systems.

Make the SUP levy effective: levy it via producers

The call from Tinga, Groot, and various political parties from across the spectrum during the last committee debate on circular economy, the increasing attention to expanding the EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) tool, and the recent call from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) in their biennial report on the state of affairs regarding the circular economy in the Netherlands (ICER): more and more people and organisations are calling for fewer burdens on consumers and more responsibility for producers and suppliers. But without a huge increase in regulatory pressure for entrepreneurs. One way to meet those calls is: to include an SUP levy in the EPR Packaging (and thus collect it from producers and importers), and to mandatorily invest those revenues in reuse, as is already happening in France, Belgium, and Portugal. French producer responsibility organisation CITEO is leading the way to reusable packaging in their country, thanks to guiding legislation. By setting up an additional charge for single-use packaging in this way, you secure the necessary investments to achieve scale. Moreover, this also meets the PPWR requirement that producer responsibility organisations must start investing in reuse systems by 2027. Verpact is the Dutch producer responsibility organisation for packaging. Market parties have seen the transition to reusable packaging coming for years, and are increasingly requesting Verpact to take the lead regarding standardisation, universal systems, and financing. The second Reusable Packaging Fair, with almost 500 visitors and 60 speakers, showed once again how much is already possible in the field of reuse. Could Verpact play a role here, just like their colleagues in other European countries? Can the €0.25 be contributed by producers and importers to the foundation, just as they are already legally required to contribute to regulate, among other things, the collection of cans and bottles? And can that contribution be mandatorily invested in reuse systems? Of course, the costs will be passed on to the consumer, but they will be offered increasingly more reusable alternatives in return, which are also becoming cheaper due to increasing economies of scale. This proposal meets the call of VVD and JA21, who successfully submitted a motion to abolish the SUP levy "considering that producers bear a responsibility to reduce plastics in litter".

Tübingen proves: a tax on single-use works

The German municipality of Tübingen decided to tackle waste and litter in their city by levying a local tax on certain single-use packaging. The local McDonalds sued the municipality, but lost after a battle up to the supreme federal court. Many hundreds of German municipalities, and also in other countries such as Belgium, are preparing to follow Tübingen's example. McDonalds was previously successful in weakening the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) as the driver of unprecedented lobbying efforts for single-use packaging.

Lack of clarity on single-use vs. reusable packaging

The transition to reusable packaging is necessary to achieve targets regarding waste and litter, but can also be described as erratic for the time being. This has to do with both practical challenges in the initial phase and misinformation, as a result of which maintaining single-use packaging is still often wrongly seen as the more sustainable option. A number of frequently heard arguments against reuse and clarification on them:

Water use: water is needed to produce and recycle plastic single-use packaging (or a mix of paper/cardboard and plastic), just as it is for producing and washing reusable cups. Meanwhile, washing facilities for reuse are becoming increasingly efficient as scale increases. In addition, reusable cups are sometimes washed before first use. But why are plastic-containing single-use cups not washed then?

Transport: raw materials are needed for a single-use cup (plastic, sometimes in combination with paper/cardboard), production and distribution must take place, and various transport movements are required for processing (recycling or incineration). For reusable packaging, transport movements to the washing facility and to the new user are required after use. Sometimes cups are even washed on site. In short: you can at least offset transport movements against each other.

Production: single-use packaging comes to the Netherlands from all over the world, and this also applies to reusable packaging. The latter are also partly produced in the Netherlands and surrounding countries. The argument that reusable packaging is equivalent to "plastic from Asia" is therefore unnuanced.

Few rotations: to be sustainable and cost-effective, a reusable package must make as many 'rotations' as possible (be reused as often as possible). In the current phase of the transition, we also see lower-quality packaging entering the market, which in practice is only reused a few times. As with any change, these are teething troubles. As the transition progresses, this problem will solve itself because new purchases must be made repeatedly, and thus costs are incurred. Meanwhile, we are also advocating for a definition of "reusable" that includes, among other things, a number of rotations and the setup of a system.

Raw materials: raw materials are repeatedly needed for single-use cups, either plastic, or a combination of plastic and paper/cardboard. Recycling single-use packaging is very difficult: to-go packaging from public waste bins is largely incinerated. Due to waste export, they may also end up in landfills in other parts of the world. And if they are recycled, this is downcycled, for example into kitchen rolls or toilet paper. rPET is the only material that can be recycled to foodgrade quality, but the market is struggling.

Hygiene: reusable cups and containers are washed and used according to the same hygiene standards as other packaging (think of plates and glasses in the hospitality industry). With BYO, the consumer, not the provider of the packaging and content, is responsible, according to the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).

Recycling: high-quality recycling of reusable PP cups (a common material for reusable packaging) is technically possible, but not (yet) legally permitted. Downcycling is already happening, for example from cup to tray. As mentioned above: single-use cups for to-go are mainly incinerated; recycling in closed environments only happens at high quality with rPET, in the best cases.

Loss of cups: due to lipstick that can no longer be washed off, this is a negligible percentage.

The transition from single-use to reusable packaging means a massive change in our society, which affects everyone. Every change comes with resistance, every transition faces teething troubles in the beginning, and with every new, sustainable development, entrepreneurs arise who only want to cash in on the new reality without regard for the environment. The practical challenges of initial higher costs, guiding consumer behaviour (user convenience), and universal infrastructure will only be solved with increasing scale.

Why did we need a transition to reusable packaging again?

According to the European Commission, 40% of the plastic in Europe is used for packaging. Half of the plastic soup – plastic in seas and oceans – consists of packaging. On average, we generate 186.5 kg of waste per person per year in the European Union. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) concluded in its biennial progress report on circular economy targets that we in the Netherlands are actually using more and more raw materials.

Related tags

More on this topic