Response to policy letter and evaluation of deposit return regulations: Deposit return systems work, and with the necessary improvements, even better

Research agency CE Delft reviewed the Dutch deposit system. The research report was sent to the House of Representatives on Monday 14 April, together with a policy response from State Secretary Jansen. CE Delft proposes seven areas for improvement. In this article, we look at these options, zoom in on the State Secretary's response, and add our first opinions. First of all, the good news is that CE Delft, the State Secretary and the general public are enthusiastic about the fact that there is a deposit on bottles, flasks and cans. In his policy response, the State Secretary mentions the following facts: In 2023, 74% by weight of all plastic bottles was collected (of the 57 million kilos sold, more than 42 million kilograms returned). The recycling of these yields a CO2 gain of 77 kton. Thanks to the deposit, the number of plastic bottles and cans in litter has decreased by about 70%. Of the consumers surveyed, 80% think a deposit is a (very) good idea. The State Secretary calls the deposit scheme "purposeful and effective", but also says: "At the same time, it is clear that it can and must be done even better." Because it is clear that the statutory target of 90% has not been met. Seven policy options In the extensive study, for which we as Fair Resource Foundation were also interviewed, CE Delft proposes seven points, which they call policy options, to improve deposit regulations and thereby increase the collection rate achieved. We believe that CE Delft mentions seven good improvements, which will ensure that the 90% target is achieved faster than is currently the case. We see that the State Secretary is taking a number of good steps in the right direction. Sometimes these steps could be taken faster and sometimes, unfortunately, he puts aside a great improvement. We will go through the seven policy options one by one and finally present two missed improvements. Mandatory deposit for plastic bottles containing juices Deposits for plastic bottles are currently only mandatory for soft drinks and water. Manufacturers can choose to also levy a deposit on bottles containing juices, and this is indeed happening. CE Delft proposes to replace this free choice with an obligation: “Around 2.1% of plastic bottles sold now concern juices without a deposit. Adding juices can therefore contribute to achieving the collection target. (…) No practical objections have been identified to adding juices to the system.” The State Secretary says he is “considering whether it is necessary to maintain the exception for juice or whether it can be abolished”. He refers to the packaging industry, which is in favour of including juice bottles in the deposit system. By including all juice bottles, it will also become clearer to consumers which bottles have a deposit. As Fair Resource Foundation we say: very nice that the State Secretary is on this line that we have had for some time, because it reduces confusion for the consumer as to which bottles do or do not have a deposit. As far as we are concerned, he will quickly translate the consideration into policy and make this obligation a reality. After all, this is a policy change that aligns with practice, because many producers already levy a deposit on their juices. This change should be arranged quickly and without resistance. Low-hanging fruit, therefore, that we should not have to wait long for. Mandatory deposit for plastic bottles containing dairy CE Delft proposes to also make a deposit mandatory for plastic bottles containing dairy. Because 12.4% of the number of plastic bottles sold now contain dairy. These bottles count towards the collection standard of 90%. Regarding the concerns that are repeatedly expressed about hygiene, CE Delft writes that these “are limited in practice abroad”. The State Secretary does not agree with this line of reasoning: “There are various practical objections here, which means that a deposit obligation is not obvious.” He wants to investigate how the collection of these plastic bottles can be improved. He is also considering keeping bottles containing dairy out of the 90% target: “I intend to instruct the ILT to only include the bottles currently in the deposit system when enforcing the 90% collection target. (…) This means that Verpact must achieve 90% collection, but that this applies exclusively to the bottles on which a deposit is levied.” We think this is a missed opportunity. Germany shows that the collection of plastic bottles containing dairy runs smoothly. In this way, raw materials can be better utilised. This line also offers the possibility that producers will add dairy to drinks to avoid the deposit obligation. Fair Resource Foundation believes that plastic bottles containing dairy should remain under the collection

Research agency CE Delft reviewed the Dutch deposit system. The research report was sent to the House of Representatives on Monday 14 April, together with a policy response from State Secretary Jansen. CE Delft proposes seven areas for improvement. In this article, we look at these options, zoom in on the State Secretary's response, and add our first opinions.

First of all, the good news is that CE Delft, the State Secretary and the general public are enthusiastic about the fact that there is a deposit on bottles, flasks and cans. In his policy response, the State Secretary mentions the following facts:

In 2023, 74% by weight of all plastic bottles was collected (of the 57 million kilos sold, more than 42 million kilograms returned).

The recycling of these yields a CO2 gain of 77 kton.

Thanks to the deposit, the number of plastic bottles and cans in litter has decreased by about 70%.

Of the consumers surveyed, 80% think a deposit is a (very) good idea.

The State Secretary calls the deposit scheme “purposeful and effective”, but also says: “At the same time, it is clear that it can and must be done even better.” Because it is clear that the statutory target of 90% has not been met.

Seven policy options

In the extensive study, for which we as Fair Resource Foundation were also interviewed, CE Delft proposes seven points, which they call policy options, to improve deposit regulations and thereby increase the collection rate achieved.

We believe that CE Delft mentions seven good improvements, which will ensure that the 90% target is achieved faster than is currently the case. We see that the State Secretary is taking a number of good steps in the right direction. Sometimes these steps could be taken faster and sometimes, unfortunately, he puts aside a great improvement. We will go through the seven policy options one by one and finally present two missed improvements.

Mandatory deposit for plastic bottles containing juices

Deposits for plastic bottles are currently only mandatory for soft drinks and water. Manufacturers can choose to also levy a deposit on bottles containing juices, and this is indeed happening. CE Delft proposes to replace this free choice with an obligation: “Around 2.1% of plastic bottles sold now concern juices without a deposit. Adding juices can therefore contribute to achieving the collection target. (…) No practical objections have been identified to adding juices to the system.”

The State Secretary says he is “considering whether it is necessary to maintain the exception for juice or whether it can be abolished”. He refers to the packaging industry, which is in favour of including juice bottles in the deposit system. By including all juice bottles, it will also become clearer to consumers which bottles have a deposit. As Fair Resource Foundation we say: very nice that the State Secretary is on this line that we have had for some time, because it reduces confusion for the consumer as to which bottles do or do not have a deposit. As far as we are concerned, he will quickly translate the consideration into policy and make this obligation a reality. After all, this is a policy change that aligns with practice, because many producers already levy a deposit on their juices. This change should be arranged quickly and without resistance. Low-hanging fruit, therefore, that we should not have to wait long for.

Mandatory deposit for plastic bottles containing dairy

CE Delft proposes to also make a deposit mandatory for plastic bottles containing dairy. Because 12.4% of the number of plastic bottles sold now contain dairy. These bottles count towards the collection standard of 90%. Regarding the concerns that are repeatedly expressed about hygiene, CE Delft writes that these “are limited in practice abroad”.

The State Secretary does not agree with this line of reasoning: “There are various practical objections here, which means that a deposit obligation is not obvious.” He wants to investigate how the collection of these plastic bottles can be improved. He is also considering keeping bottles containing dairy out of the 90% target: “I intend to instruct the ILT to only include the bottles currently in the deposit system when enforcing the 90% collection target. (…) This means that Verpact must achieve 90% collection, but that this applies exclusively to the bottles on which a deposit is levied.”

We think this is a missed opportunity. Germany shows that the collection of plastic bottles containing dairy runs smoothly. In this way, raw materials can be better utilised. This line also offers the possibility that producers will add dairy to drinks to avoid the deposit obligation. Fair Resource Foundation believes that plastic bottles containing dairy must remain under the 90% collection obligation. The business community can also decide to introduce a voluntary deposit on plastic bottles, including dairy, so there is no reason to adjust the enforcement actions by the ILT.

Obligation to levy deposits by all points of sale

“At present, producers and importers are responsible for the deposit as the standard addressee,” writes CE Delft. The disadvantage of this is that it is difficult to take action against the sale of packaging that should have a deposit, but does not in practice. After all, there are shops, both physical and online, that sell packaging without a deposit, but which should have a deposit. CE Delft proposes to impose an obligation on all points of sale.

The State Secretary agrees with this: “This undesirable situation will be remedied by following the policy option and no longer making it possible for points of sale to sell deposit bottles and cans without a deposit. This will also facilitate enforcement.”

We consider this pure profit and welcome this development.

Include and further detail return obligation in deposit legislation

CE Delft indicates that a return obligation can contribute to achieving the 90% standard: “At present, points of sale are not legally obliged to take back empty packaging. A take-back obligation for points of sale will lead to more return points and can thereby contribute to extra return volumes.” CE Delft sees that a take-back obligation is in line with future European legislation and proposes to further elaborate the return obligation: how to deal with small points of sale and with enforcement?

“Given the broad support for the principle and the expected positive effect on the collection rate, it is obvious to include such an obligation in the regulations,” writes the State Secretary. However, he does see practical objections and conflicting interests and announces a follow-up study on the basis of which “a choice can be made as to whether and how a take-back obligation is included in the regulations”. He writes: “The expectation is that the study can be sent to the House in the first quarter of 2026.”

We believe a take-back obligation is essential for a well-functioning deposit system. Wherever the consumer buys products, he must be able to hand in empty packaging and get his money back. It is therefore very good that the take-back obligation is finally in the picture. The State Secretary says he needs a year for additional research, for example to look at the position of small shops and at enforcement. But the question is: why must this take so long? Previously, the Packaging Management Decree also stated that a seller of deposit bottles must also take them back. Many countries with deposits already have a take-back obligation, and Verpact is also in favour of a take-back obligation, so let's speed up the pace here.

Introducing packaging tax for producers based on the Norwegian model

“In the national deposit scheme, it is currently not determined how to deal with unreturned deposits,” writes CE Delft, which sees that more unreturned deposits now lead to lower costs for producers. As a “compensatory incentive”, a packaging tax based on the Norwegian model could be considered. Norway levies an “environmental tax” on every package, which decreases as collection rates increase, making products cheaper. CE Delft indicates that this tax falls outside the scope of the study, but that it can contribute as an accompanying policy. The State Secretary sees objections to this Norwegian model and puts it aside. He does see that consumers have paid a lot of deposits that have not been paid out to them (506 million euros from 2021 to 2024 inclusive). However, he does announce follow-up research “into whether and how something can be included in the deposit scheme about uncollected deposits, such as making transparency about finances legally mandatory (which Verpact already does in practice) and legally mandating investment in the functioning of the system (which Verpact already does in practice).”

We think it is very good that the State Secretary addresses the topic of unpaid deposits. But we find the direction of thought poor and leaning in favour of the producers. Together with the Consumentenbond and Milieudefensie, we believe that this deposit paid by consumers should also return to the consumer. We advocate a return bonus: the consumer pays a 15-cent deposit when purchasing a bottle or can and gets 20 cents back when returning it. According to the AD and Telegraaf, the ILT would actually consider ordering Veropact to introduce this bonus, which we consider highly desirable.

European or multilingual deposit logo

The fact that the deposit logo is in Dutch limits tourists and speakers of other languages from returning empty packaging, writes CE Delft, which advocates a European or multilingual logo. In 2029, a European logo would be introduced under the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (known as: PPWR), but countries can anticipate this.

The State Secretary does not seem to want to play a pioneering role on this point: “The points identified in the evaluation report will be included in the feedback to the European Union in designing the deposit logo.”

We agree with the researchers that a European or multilingual logo is needed. But if we understand the PPWR correctly, the European logo is not mandatory, and such a harmonised logo is only a possibility. Falling back on the PPWR offers too little certainty here, and we call on producers to quickly introduce a multilingual logo. Just as it is better to communicate to tourists and speakers of other languages to encourage them to return more empty packaging.

Increasing depositsThe final policy option from CE Delft is a politically sensitive one: increasing the deposit amount: “Increasing the amount can provide a financial incentive to groups, such as young people, to return more packaging with a deposit”. It also has disadvantages, the researchers write, such as theft and breaking open rubbish bins. CE Delft does not make a concrete proposal as to what amount the deposit could be increased to. The State Secretary is not proceeding with this option. He mentions, among other reasons, that consumers indicate they do not need this incentive and that Dutch amounts are in line with European countries.

However, increasing the deposit does contribute to higher collection rates, research by Reloop shows. Norway, for example, boosted the return rate of cans from 84.3% to 93% by increasing the deposit amount in 2018 by the equivalent of ten euro cents. The US state of Oregon saw the return rate of all beverage containers rise from 73% to 86% in two years by increasing the deposit by five US cents. An increase in deposits in the Canadian province of Alberta led to 12% more returns over a three-year period. In the Netherlands, too, an increase in deposits would presumably lead to more collection, we believe. The State Secretary avoids the political choice here, which is sensitive but indeed necessary.

Missed proposals

CE Delft proposes seven improvements that we can fully endorse. Among these seven points, we still miss two of our own proposals to improve the deposit system. These are: a) Reduce the exceptions:

Although CE Delft looks at the types of drinks that are or are not subject to a deposit and says that a deposit on bottles of juice and dairy can work well. As Fair Resource Foundation, we also believe that exceptions on the types of packaging should be reduced. For example, there is no deposit on beverage cartons and drink pouches, and we believe that a deposit should be introduced on these.

If a deposit because of the packaging itself were to be a problem for return, then this packaging should not be on the market. By either levying deposits on all beverage packaging, or removing packaging without a deposit from the market, we also make the market fairer for producers. Everyone participates in deposits, avoidance is no longer possible, and the consumer knows where they stand.

b) Also allow dented packaging

Beverage packaging must currently be returned intact, otherwise the machine will refuse it. The reason given is that it must be recognisable that a deposit has been paid for it in the Netherlands. But a readable barcode on a dented package already proves this, and an employee can easily recognise Dutch packaging. The consumer does not care about the limitations of a machine. If a deposit has been paid, it must be returned.