ILT imposes new penalty, Verpact fails to meet targets again

“The implementation of the deposit return system must and can be improved.” With these words, Thierry Aartsen (VVD), outgoing state secretary for circular economy, begins his most recent parliamentary letter on deposits. In the letter, Aartsen expresses his dissatisfaction with the collection: Verpact still does not reach the statutory goal of 90%, consumers experience too much inconvenience (due to, among other things, a shortage of return points, defective return points and excessively long queues) and he sees an increase in litter around public bins. Meanwhile, the ILT has come up with a new penalty payment. Through a public report, Verpact announced the collection figures for 2024. The collection of plastic bottles and small bottles amounted to 77% of the total, of which 72% via deposits and 5% via PMD. In 2023, 74% was collected and in 2022, 68% was collected. A rising line can be seen, but it is flattening out. Of the metal packaging (cans), 83% was collected, of which 75% via deposits and 8% via PMD. Because deposits on cans were introduced on 1 April 2023, there are no prior annual figures. Verpact does not reach the statutory goal of 90% with these figures. Regarding bottles/small bottles, Verpact is in violation for three consecutive years. Also when only the bottles/small bottles in the deposit return system are counted (deposit is not mandatory on bottles with juice and dairy), the collection percentage in 2024 is only 83% (excluding PMD). Against increasing deposits In his parliamentary letter, Aartsen announces that he will enter into talks with the packaging industry because its performance is substandard. We should be pleased with that firm tone. Unfortunately, concrete measures or actions are currently lacking. This letter mainly contains a plea against increasing deposits: “The expected impact on the collection percentage per increased cent is small, while it increases the purchase costs of groceries. Moreover, it does not solve the underlying problems.” We agree with the state secretary that there are too few return points, but that is also because no take-back obligation is included in Dutch law. Increasing deposits does work, however, as we wrote earlier, based on figures from Reloop. Norway, for example, boosted the return rate of cans from 84.3% to 93% by increasing the deposit amount by the equivalent of ten euro cents in 2018. In the US state of Oregon, the return rate of all beverage containers rose from 73% to 86% in two years by increasing the deposit by five dollar cents. An increase in deposits in the Canadian province of Alberta resulted in 12% more returns over a three-year period. In our view, the state secretary is avoiding the political choice that may be sensitive but is necessary. Positive (financial) incentives In his recent parliamentary letter, the state secretary also writes: “As long as the return system is not yet optimised, I believe that positive (financial) incentives should be used to entice the consumer to return correctly, without this having an impact on grocery costs.” We, as Fair Resource Foundation, believe that positive (financial) incentives are an important tool. It is not without reason that, together with the Consumentenbond and Milieudefensie, we have been advocating for a return premium since December 2024. This premium means that consumers pay a 15-cent deposit for bottles and cans, and get 20 cents back when returning them. This financial incentive of an extra 5 cents rewards consumers for actually returning beverage packaging. Verpact will achieve the statutory goal of 90% faster, and the half billion in deposits that is paid but not paid out will thus return to the consumer. Unfortunately, Aartsen does not use the word return premium in his letter, so we are very curious about which positive (financial) incentives he does mean. De Telegraaf writes about “a return bonus proposed by the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) to entice consumers to walk to a reverse vending machine more often”, and adds that the amount of that bonus is unknown. Verpact does not think this is a good idea because the nuisance caused by so-called cans in large cities would worsen: “We are already seeing a lot of nuisance. And the more money something is worth, the more nuisance you will get,” says Verpact. We say: do not shift the problem to the deposit collectors who are doing good work, but make returning easier by providing more return points through a take-back obligation. Verpact is now also in favour of this. New order subject to periodic penalty payments And now we come to the real news: the state secretary talks about increasing deposits in the context of a further order subject to periodic penalty payments that the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) has imposed on Verpact. The state secretary does not go into the

“The implementation of the deposit return system must and can be improved.” With these words, Thierry Aartsen (VVD), outgoing state secretary for circular economy, begins his most recent parliamentary letter on deposits. In the letter, Aartsen expresses his dissatisfaction with the collection: Verpact still does not reach the statutory goal of 90%, consumers experience too much inconvenience (due to, among other things, a shortage of return points, defective return points and excessively long queues) and he sees an increase in litter around public bins. Meanwhile, the ILT has come up with a new penalty payment.

Through a public report, Verpact announced the collection figures for 2024. The collection of plastic bottles and small bottles amounted to 77% of the total, of which 72% via deposits and 5% via PMD. In 2023, 74% was collected and in 2022, 68% was collected. A rising line can be seen, but it is flattening out. Of the metal packaging (cans), 83% was collected, of which 75% via deposits and 8% via PMD. Because deposits on cans were introduced on 1 April 2023, there are no prior annual figures. Verpact does not reach the statutory goal of 90% with these figures. Regarding bottles/small bottles, Verpact is in violation for three consecutive years. Also when only the bottles/small bottles in the deposit return system are counted (deposit is not mandatory on bottles with juice and dairy), the collection percentage in 2024 is only 83% (excluding PMD).

Against increasing deposits

In his parliamentary letter, Aartsen announces that he will enter into talks with the packaging industry because its performance is substandard. We should be pleased with that firm tone. Unfortunately, concrete measures or actions are currently lacking. This letter mainly contains a plea against increasing deposits: “The expected impact on the collection percentage per increased cent is small, while it increases the purchase costs of groceries. It also does not solve the underlying problems.” We agree with the state secretary that there are too few return points, but that is also because no take-back obligation is included in Dutch law. Increasing deposits does work, however, as we wrote earlier, based on figures from Reloop. Norway, for example, boosted the return rate of cans from 84.3% to 93% by increasing the deposit amount by the equivalent of ten euro cents in 2018. In the US state of Oregon, the return rate of all beverage containers rose from 73% to 86% in two years by increasing the deposit by five dollar cents. An increase in deposits in the Canadian province of Alberta resulted in 12% more returns over a three-year period. In our view, the state secretary is avoiding the political choice that may be sensitive but is necessary.

Positive (financial) incentives

In his recent parliamentary letter, the state secretary also writes: “As long as the return system is not yet optimised, I believe that positive (financial) incentives should be used to entice the consumer to return correctly, without this having an impact on grocery costs.” We, as Fair Resource Foundation, believe that positive (financial) incentives are an important tool. It is not without reason that, together with the Consumentenbond and Milieudefensie, we have been advocating for a return premium since December 2024.

This premium means that consumers pay a 15-cent deposit for bottles and cans, and get 20 cents back when returning them. This financial incentive of an extra 5 cents rewards consumers for actually returning beverage packaging. Verpact will achieve the statutory goal of 90% faster, and the half billion in deposits that is paid but not paid out will thus return to the consumer. In his letter, Aartsen unfortunately does not use the word return premium, so we are very curious about which positive (financial) incentives he does mean.

De Telegraaf writes about “a return bonus proposed by the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) to entice consumers to walk to a reverse vending machine more often”, and adds that the amount of that bonus is unknown. Verpact does not think this is a good idea because the nuisance caused by so-called cans in large cities would worsen: “We are already seeing a lot of nuisance. And the more money something is worth, the more nuisance you will get,” says Verpact. We say: do not shift the problem to the deposit collectors who are doing good work, but make returning easier by providing more return points through a take-back obligation. Verpact is now also in favour of this.

New order subject to periodic penalty payments

And now we come to the real news: the state secretary talks about increasing deposits in the context of a further order subject to periodic penalty payments that the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT) has imposed on Verpact. The state secretary does not go into the contents of this new penalty payment. The ILT itself has also not yet published anything about this new penalty payment that is supposed to bring Verpact to the 90% collection rate. But that penalty payment is highly likely to be about increasing deposits and/or another financial incentive that contributes to a higher return rate, as Aartsen discusses these points. And with this letter, Aartsen seems to publicly provide direction and context to a penalty payment whose contents are not publicly known. Meanwhile, State Secretary Aartsen forgets to reflect on other improvements to the system that his predecessor Chris Jansen (PVV) was working on. Namely:

mandatory deposit o Wingelaar motion, preferably introduced as of 1 January 2026;

mandatory deposit o

take-back obligation: Jansen was due to present a study in the first quarter of 2026;

import of packaging without deposit: Jansen wanted sellers, rather than importers, to be responsible for deposits.

It is a pity that Aartsen does not address these points in his letter. Because these are measures that we know will bring the desired success.

Ultimately, his parliamentary letter is also somewhat strange. Because the state secretary does not address current policy, but does speak about a new order subject to periodic penalty payments from the ILT without speaking about its concrete content. But by acting against increasing deposits and pleading for positive (financial) incentives, it seems as if he does not agree with the content of the penalty payment and felt the need to go against the ILT. What is rather peculiar in this context: it is customary for orders subject to periodic penalty payments from the ILT to be signed on behalf of the State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management.

Financial transparency

On Thursday 11 September, the Circular Economy spokespersons debated with each other in a committee debate. In the debate, State Secretary Aartsen refused to carry out the Wingelaar motion which called for mandatory deposits on plastic juice bottles, preferably from 1 January. Deposits on these bottles are already possible and actually happen. But Aartsen is not introducing the obligation and is ignoring the motion. “First, Verpact must ensure with an overall plan that ‘the basics are in order’,” is how AfvalOnline summarises Aartsen's position. This stalling tactic is exceptionally regrettable: a mandatory requirement would lead to more collection and thus more conservation of raw materials.

In the debate, Aartsen expressed dissatisfaction with Verpact's financial transparency. Justifiably so, because Verpact offers little to no insight into the money flows surrounding deposits. For example, it has never been made transparent what happens to the half billion in unpaid deposits over the years 2021-2024. Verpact does keep saying that this money goes back into the system, but how and how much cannot be found anywhere. A financial section was also added to the public report this year.

Quite brief, but what stands out: the deposit return system cost 205 million euros. Producers paid 33 million euros to the system. And the bulk of the income comes from the consumer: in 2024, the amount of unpaid deposits was 139 million. The ratio between consumer and producer contributions is really skewed: consumers together pay more than four times as much to the syste

“In 2024, more than 75 million euros worth of new machines were purchased and placed on loan at return points,” writes Verpact. A good investment, because the Netherlands has far too few return points and Verpact showed little urgency in establishing new return points. Much to the dissatisfaction of the ILT, which ordered in 2024 that Verpact must realise at least 5,400 additional paying return points before 1 January 2027. We do not see how many return points were actually realised in 2024. Furthermore, we also do not see how much money goes towards Verpact's own overheads.

Related tags

More on this topic