Interim evaluation of the Dutch deposit return system for plastic bottles

In this review, we will look into the expansion of the Dutch deposit-refund system to small plastic bottles. We will measure it against the four main factors that make a deposit system successful.

Suze Govers

16 Nov 2021

Introduction and background

Since 1 July 2021, there has been a deposit on small plastic bottles containing water and soft drinks. The reason for this decision was the policy objective of achieving a far-reaching reduction in the number of bottles in the environment and the realisation that this cannot be achieved without a deposit.

The government has expanded the deposit system to small plastic bottles with the following intended results. Firstly, deposits are expected to reduce the number of bottles in the environment by 70-90%. Other countries are achieving great results in this area with beverage packaging on which a deposit is levied. For example, in Germany, cans make up only 0.03% of litter. The first predictions based on data from Dirk Groot (the Zwerfinator) show that an effect on the number of bottles in litter is already visible in the Netherlands. Secondly, the deposit is intended to contribute to achieving 90% separate collection of plastic bottles, a target that is legally established as of calendar year 2022 (following the European Single Use Plastics Directive). Other countries with a deposit system achieve very high collection rates for beverage packaging with a deposit (see table 1). No figures on current collection rates in the Netherlands are yet public.

In this review, we look at the expansion of the Dutch deposit system to small plastic bottles. We assess it against the four main factors that make a deposit system successful. On this basis, we investigate whether the introduction of deposits on small plastic bottles in the Netherlands is sufficiently well organised to achieve an effective system and guarantee good collection results.

What makes a deposit system successful?

The core of a deposit system is always the same: the consumer pays an amount on top of the purchase price of a packaging. He/she then gets that amount back when this packaging is returned correctly. In the practical roll-out of a deposit system, some additional choices must be made. These are the variable factors about which governments and involved stakeholders, such as businesses and the organisation behind the deposit system, in this case Statiegeld Nederland, make decisions. These choices are decisive for the ultimate effectiveness of the deposit system. How they are implemented can strengthen the functioning and positive (environmental) effects of the deposit system, but also undermine them.

In this interim evaluation, we look at whether the setup of the Dutch deposit system for small plastic bottles sufficiently guarantees the effectiveness of this system. This review will address the following four factors:

The level of the deposit amount;
Sufficient collection points and the accessibility of those collection points;
Clarity of the system for the consumer;
Informative and activating communication towards the consumer.
The level of the deposit amount

In the draft legislation for deposits on small plastic bottles, the government indicated it wanted to apply a minimum deposit of 15 cents. The environmental organisations Recycling Netwerk Benelux, Natuur & Milieu, Plastic Soup Foundation, the Plastic Soup Surfer and Greenpeace responded in an official joint statement that 15 cents is a relatively low deposit amount. The environmental organisations recommended introducing a higher deposit amount.

The reason for this is that there is a correlation between the level of the deposit amount and the expected return rates. The graph below from research agency Eunomia from 2012, based on return rates in different countries, shows that the level of the deposit influences the return rate. With a deposit amount of 10 cents, the average expected return rate based on Eunomia is about 86%, at 25 cents this is more than 90% (see graph 1). It is important to realise here that Dutch producers are legally obliged to achieve a 90% collection rate for plastic bottles.

Graph 1 Relation between deposit amount and return rates

Source: Eunomia (2012)

CE Delft also assumes in the study Costs and effects of deposits on small bottles and cans (2017) that the return rate and environmental benefits will probably be higher with a higher deposit amount. For example, CE Delft largely attributes the high collection rates in Germany, namely 98%, to the level of the deposit amount of 25 cents.

CE Delft also investigated in 2001 the expected reduction percentage of litter, based on a consumer survey among 952 Dutch citizens. The reduction would be 65% with a deposit amount of 5 cents. With an amount of 10 cents, based on the calculation at that time, the reduction would be 74%. With an amount of 20 cents, the r

Introduction and background

The government has expanded the deposit system to small plastic bottles with the following intended results. Firstly, deposits are expected to reduce the number of bottles in the environment by 70-90%. Other countries are achieving great results in this area with beverage packaging on which a deposit is levied. For example, in Germany, cans make up only 0.03% of litter. The first predictions based on data from Dirk Groot (the Zwerfinator) show that an effect on the number of bottles in litter is already visible in the Netherlands. Secondly, the deposit is intended to contribute to achieving 90% separate collection of plastic bottles, a target that is legally established as of calendar year 2022 (following the European Single Use Plastics Directive). Other countries with a deposit system achieve very high collection rates for beverage packaging with a deposit (see table 1). No figures on current collection rates in the Netherlands are yet public.

What makes a deposit system successful?

1. The level of the deposit amount;

2. Sufficient collection points and the accessibility of those collection points;

3. Clarity of the system for the consumer;

4. Informative and activating communication towards the consumer.

1. The level of the deposit amount

Graph 1 Relation between deposit amount and return rates Source: Eunomia (2012)

Norway, where a well-functioning deposit system has existed since 1999, doubled the deposit amount on small plastic bottles and cans (≤ 0.5 litres) in 2018 from 1 to 2 Norwegian Krone (NOK). 2 NOK equals about 20 cents. Germany introduced a deposit system in 2003, and since 2004 there has been a deposit amount of 25 cents on all single-use bottles and cans.

The Dutch government ultimately chose to legally set the minimum deposit amount for small plastic bottles at 15 cents. The fact that this is a minimum amount means that producers are free to apply a higher deposit amount. The producers, in turn, have not chosen to do so; since 1 July 2021, there has been a 15-cent deposit on small plastic bottles containing soft drinks and water.

Interim conclusion

Based on the information already available, the Dutch government could have ensured a more effective functioning of the deposit system by choosing a higher minimum deposit amount. The beverage producers, in turn, could have chosen to apply a higher deposit amount than the set legal minimum. The current relatively low deposit amount of 15 cents undermines the effectiveness of the deposit system and jeopardises producers achieving the legally required collection rate of 90% for plastic bottles.

2. Sufficient and accessible collection points

The number of collection points and their accessibility are also important factors in ensuring the effectiveness of the system. When consumers can return their bottles in exchange for deposits at many locations that are easily accessible, it makes the system convenient and low-threshold. In this way, a dense and accessible network of collection points has a positive effect on collection rates. Conversely, collection and recycling rates will be negatively affected by a lower number of collection points and when, for example, certain retail outlets do not pay out deposits. This causes confusion and makes it harder for the consumer to get their deposit back. This creates a real risk of a negative impact on consumers' willingness and appreciation regarding returning plastic bottles.

An efficient and common way to guarantee a dense network of return points is a take-back obligation for retail outlets. This is why Recycling Netwerk Benelux, Natuur & Milieu, Plastic Soup Foundation, the Plastic Soup Surfer and Greenpeace advocated from the start for a legal take-back obligation for retail outlets, with the possibility of exemptions for smaller points of sale.

Case studies from abroad support the importance of such a take-back obligation for achieving good collection rates. In deposit countries that achieve high collection rates of 90% or more (Germany, Lithuania, Norway), there is a take-back obligation for retail outlets. In countries with deposit systems without a take-back obligation, average recycling rates are lower.

Sweden is the highest-scoring country among those without a take-back obligation. The system has existed since 1984 for cans, and plastic beverage bottles were added in 1994. In 2019, Sweden collected and recycled 84.1% of plastic bottles (the total recycling rate including cans is 84.9%). Sweden, without a take-back obligation, falls far short of the 90% separate collection target that is legally mandatory in the Netherlands from 2022 onwards.

Take-back obligation in the Netherlands

Until 1 July 2021, the take-back obligation was part of the legislation in the Netherlands under the Packaging Management Decree 2014. When incorporating deposits for small plastic bottles into this legislation (effective 1 July 2021) via the Decree on measures for plastic beverage bottles, the Dutch government decided to remove that take-back obligation for retail outlets from the legislation.

As a result, we now see that several (large) points of sale sell deposit plastic bottles, but do not return the deposit to consumers when they want to return their bottle there. Some examples of this are cinemas such as Pathé; petrol stations; McDonalds; La Place, AH to go stores; museums and theatres; universities; and shops such as Hema, Kruidvat and Action. Previously, amusement park De Efteling was also on this list, but they have now indicated to us that people can return their bottle for a 15-cent deposit at the cloakroom.

This means that in absolute terms there are fewer return points in the Netherlands than if a legal take-back obligation had been established. In addition, there are various locations where the drink in the bottle is consumed on the spot. Without returning the deposit at that location, there is a significant barrier for the consumer to return the bottle. Moreover, the failure to pay out deposits by some (large) points of sale leads to confusion and incomprehension for consumers. Both factors undermine the effectiveness of the deposit system.

Finally, it is important to know that the lower number of collection points amplifies the negative impact of the low 15-cent deposit amount on return rates. CE Delft concludes in the deposit study that

This page is automatically translated. A human review will follow soon.