Farmers, consumers and environmentalists present building blocks for a strong deposit return system

Farmers' organisations Algemeen Boerensyndicaat and Fugea, environmental organisations Bond Beter Leefmilieu, Canal It Up, Collectif de la Consigne Bruxelloise, Greenpeace, Herwin, Proper Strandlopers, Natuurpunt, Recycling Netwerk and consumer organisation Test-Aankoop signed a joint letter to that end to environment ministers Zuhal Demir (Flanders), Céline Tellier (Wallonia), Alain Maron (Brussels), Zakia Khattabi (federal) and the (vice-)minister-presidents of the three regions. Collection via supermarkets and points of sale The signatories advocate that the deposit decrees give consumers the right to reclaim their deposit at any point of sale/supermarket. This system of ‘return-to-retail’ is the standard in successful deposit countries. No country achieves 90% separate collection of packaging without this model. The collection obligation for retail is also important to clearly regulate the legal division of responsibilities between beverage producers on the one hand and retail on the other. A collection system via points of sale also enables the development of packaging reuse. Fost Plus scanning system at home and on the street The letter writers ask the ministers no longer to wait for studies and pilot projects that Fost Plus claims it will carry out into a scanning system, which have yet to start. In that system, which does not yet exist, people would have to scan each package individually with a smartphone or hand scanner. And also the public rubbish bin or the blue bag they throw the packaging into. To do this, an app must be installed and an internet connection must be available. The app must be linked to a personal bank account. There are barriers to this Fost Plus scanning system. The technology to print unique QR codes at high speed on cans does not yet exist. There are questions about fraud proofness and privacy. It is unclear how much such a system costs. And the question arises whether the system is accessible to people who are not digitally skilled ( 46 per cent of the Flemish population lack basic digital skills). There is also the question of whether people actually get their money back immediately. It has also not been demonstrated whether such a scanning system corresponds to a consumer desire. It remains unclear for the time being when a scanning system could be operational. The business community indicates that it needs to carry out further research and tests into the feasibility of a digital deposit system. This would necessarily take years, as it is based on a system design that does not yet exist anywhere. It is therefore unclear whether such a scanning system can be implemented at all before the end of this decade. Building blocks for a deposit system that effectively tackles litter The environmental, farmers' and consumer organisations together give the following advice to ensure that the deposit system is maximally effective in the fight against litter: Introduce a deposit on plastic bottles and cans up to a minimum of 3 litres. Provide supporting policies for other beverage packaging, for example through taxation. This is to prevent some producers from choosing, for example, less sustainable beverage cartons for water. Do not make exceptions based on the content of the packaging. That is confusing for the consumer. That undermines support for and the effectiveness of the system. Opt for an amount of at least 20 euro cents per package and do not make a difference between large and small packaging. Smaller packaging ends up in litter more often. We want to encourage their collection. Ensure that consumers get their money back (right to refund) at points of sale by introducing a legal collection obligation for retail. Exceptions can be made for small points of sale. Make one management organisation responsible for the operational implementation of the system. Ensure maximum transparency and involvement of stakeholders from the business community, including SMEs, and wider society, at least environmental organisations, consumer organisations and municipalities. Compensate points of sale that take back deposit packaging with a ‘handling fee’. That fee is financed by the proceeds of the recycled material, the unclaimed deposit and a ‘producer fee’ paid by producers, as for example in Norway. Make the system accessible to small points of sale that, for example, want to take back packaging manually. Those small businesses are also entitled to a handling fee and the advantage of extra potential customers in the shop. Encourage the achievement of the highest possible collection figures, instead of aiming for a minimum collection rate. This can be done, for example, with financial incentives or through the way the management organisation is run. Timing The organisations also note that the Belgian regions can decide independently to introduce a deposit on

Farmers' organisations Algemeen Boerensyndicaat and Fugea, environmental organisations Bond Beter Leefmilieu, Canal It Up, Collectif de la Consigne Bruxelloise, Greenpeace, Herwin, Proper Strandlopers, Natuurpunt, Recycling Netwerk and consumer organisation Test-Aankoop signed a joint letter to that end to environment ministers Zuhal Demir (Flanders), Céline Tellier (Wallonia), Alain Maron (Brussels), Zakia Khattabi (federal) and the (vice-)minister-presidents of the three regions.

Collection via supermarkets and points of sale

The signatories advocate that the deposit decrees give consumers the right to reclaim their deposit at any point of sale/supermarket. This system of ‘return-to-retail’ is the standard in successful deposit countries. No country achieves 90% separate collection of packaging without this model. The collection obligation for retail is also important to clearly regulate the legal division of responsibilities between beverage producers on the one hand and retail on the other. A collection system via points of sale also enables the development of packaging reuse.

Fost Plus scanning system at home and on the street

The letter writers ask the ministers no longer to wait for studies and pilot projects that Fost Plus claims it will carry out into a scanning system, which have yet to start. In that system, which does not yet exist, people would have to scan each package individually with a smartphone or hand scanner. And also the public rubbish bin or the blue bag they throw the packaging into. To do this, an app must be installed and an internet connection must be available. The app must be linked to a personal bank account.

There are barriers to this Fost Plus scanning system. The technology to print unique QR codes at high speed on cans does not yet exist. There are questions about fraud proofness and privacy. It is unclear how much such a system costs. And the question arises whether the system is accessible to people who are not digitally skilled (46 per cent of the Flemish population lack basic digital skills). There is also the question of whether people actually get their money back immediately. It has also not been demonstrated whether such a scanning system corresponds to a consumer desire.

It remains unclear for the time being when a scanning system could be operational. The business community indicates that it needs to carry out further research and tests into the feasibility of a digital deposit system. This would necessarily take years, as it is based on a system design that does not yet exist anywhere. It is therefore unclear whether such a scanning system can be implemented at all before the end of this decade.

Building blocks for a deposit system that effectively tackles litter

The environmental, farmers' and consumer organisations together give the following advice to ensure that the deposit system is maximally effective in the fight against litter:

Introduce a deposit on plastic bottles and cans up to a minimum of 3 litres. Provide supporting policies for other beverage packaging, for example through taxation. This is to prevent some producers from choosing, for example, less sustainable beverage cartons for water.

Do not make exceptions based on the content of the packaging. That is confusing for the consumer. That undermines support for and the effectiveness of the system.

Opt for an amount of at least 20 euro cents per package and do not make a difference between large and small packaging. Smaller packaging ends up in litter more often. We want to encourage their collection.

Ensure that consumers get their money back (right to refund) at points of sale by introducing a legal collection obligation for retail. Exceptions can be made for small points of sale.

Make one management organisation responsible for the operational implementation of the system. Ensure maximum transparency and involvement of stakeholders from the business community, including SMEs, and wider society, at least environmental organisations, consumer organisations and municipalities.

Compensate points of sale that take back deposit packaging with a ‘handling fee’. That fee is financed by the proceeds of the recycled material, the unclaimed deposit and a ‘producer fee’ paid by producers, as for example in Norway.

Make the system accessible to small points of sale that, for example, want to take back packaging manually. Those small businesses are also entitled to a handling fee and the advantage of extra potential customers in the shop.

Encourage the achievement of the highest possible collection figures, instead of aiming for a minimum collection rate. This can be done, for example, with financial incentives or through the way the management organisation is run.

Timing

The organisations also note that the Belgian regions can decide independently to introduce a deposit on beverage packaging, but ideally decide together on the modalities of the system.

Based on experiences in other EU countries, the introduction of a deposit system takes about 12 to 18 months from the moment the legislation comes into force. Taking into account the necessary steps in political decision-making, the entire deposit system could be operational in 2025. “You already have our support for the implementation of this”, the organisations conclude their letter.

Read the letter here.