�����̨

Commissioned by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, CE Delft and Utrecht University have evaluated the current deposit scheme on plastic bottles and cans for effectiveness and effects. Since the introduction of the statutory deposit scheme on plastic bottles (since 2021) and cans (since 2023), these have been significantly reduced in litter. But the legal collection target – at least 90 percent of all bottles and cans sold – still remains out of reach, and a European obligation to meet it is getting closer.

The report includes policy options to improve collection, such as a deposit requirement for juice and dairy bottles and a collection obligation for outlets, even if they do not have a RVM like most of the larger supermarkets. Increasing the deposit amount and introducing a clear European or multilingual logo are also worth considering.

The proportion of plastic bottles and cans in litter has fallen considerably since the introduction of deposits, the evaluation report shows. However, the decrease in plastic bottles is much less than for cans, which may be influenced by the fact that juice and dairy plastic (unlike soft drinks) still do not carry a deposit. Dairy has a relatively large share: 12.4 percent of all packaging, according to figures from Verpact, the organization that organizes collection on behalf of producers and importers. Furthermore, the researchers note that the current deposit system leads to more recycling of cans and bottles, with still (limited) room for additional environmental gains.

Any shift effect (e.g. to deposit-free beverage cartons) is difficult to quantify at this time, the report shows. Another side effect of deposits is that public trash cans and waste bags are opened to look for empty bottles and cans. The “National Trash Bin Count Day,” a one-day count organized by the Plastic Soup Surfer and Zwerfinator last November, showed that breaking open trash cans is primarily a problem in large cities, particularly in Amsterdam and on a more limited scale in Utrecht.

Collection target

The legal collection target, according to the Dutch Packaging Management Decree (Bbv), is 90 percent of all plastic bottles and cans, so including those currently exempt from deposits, such as juice and dairy plastic, measured by weight (not by number). Part of this may come from municipal PMD collection: a maximum of 5 percent of bottles and 10 percent of cans. The actual collection rate achieved (over 2024) is 78 percent for bottles and 82 percent for cans. Therefore, the conclusion is that the collection targets for plastic bottles and cans set in the Bbv have both not yet been met. The researchers outline several policy options to improve collection, but within the possibilities of (expected) laws and regulations.

Legal framework

In a separate chapter, Marlon Boeve and Chris Backes (both affiliated to Utrecht University's Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law) discuss how our deposit legislation (the Packaging Management Decree) relates to other national law (in particular the Extended Producer Responsibility Decree) and to current and future European regulations. The legal framework co-determines the policy options.

Current EU law does not explicitly require the introduction of a national deposit scheme; that is a national policy choice. However, the Single-use plastics (or SUP) directive does contain targets for separate collection of plastic bottles, with a 90 percent rate by 2029 just like in the Bbv (the SUP directive says nothing about cans). But that will change with the entry into force of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) in 2026, the main obligations of which will apply from 2029. The PPWR brings new obligations regarding separate collection and deposit systems for plastic beverage bottles (including juice) and metal beverage containers. But again there are all kinds of exceptions, such as for 'milk and dairy products', where it is not (yet) entirely clear what possibilities a member state has to independently introduce deposits for these without it being considered an impermissible, trade-restricting measure. 

Policy options

There are still plenty of opportunities to further improve collection. The report outlines seven policy options, taking into account laws and regulations and potential side effects, including the following: 

• The Ministry of I&W may consider including juices in the deposit obligation after all, is mentioned as one of the possible measures to meet the legal objective. Under European law, that obligation does not exist now, but that will change from 2029, so the obvious thing to do is to introduce it in advance.
• A deposit on dairy packaging is also worth considering, given its relatively large share in the total stream of packaging. Dairy was exempted at the time because it could lead to hygiene problems, but experience to date does not indicate this, and it would help Verpact meet the collection target. As of 2029, in accordance with the PPWR, some dairy products must in principle be covered by the deposit system, and “for other dairy products, it seems permissible to include them in the deposit system as well,” as the researchers phrase with legal circumspect.
• Empty deposit packaging can currently be returned at a limited number of locations for a refund, especially in supermarkets with RVMs, but many outlets (such as kiosks, hardware stores, and amusement parks) are not required to take empty packaging and do so to a very limited extent. A take-back obligation for points of sale can contribute to additional take-back and thus to achieving the collection target and a further reduction of litter. Such a collection obligation is also in line with the PPWR, the researchers write. 
• The consumer survey, conducted among a thousand Dutch citizens, shows that the amount of the deposit is insufficient incentive for certain groups to return empty packaging: 8 percent indicated that the current deposit amount is too low. Increasing the deposit amount can therefore contribute to higher collection rates. However, it also has disadvantages, such as a greater risk of fraud and a greater incentive for breaking open trash cans.