Overpackaging has been a growing concern for our environment. The most frustrating is double packaging: when an extra unnecessary layer of paper or plastic is put around a packaged product to join them together and sell more. To stop this packaging madness for profit, Canal It Up, Proper Strandlopers, Gents Milieufront and Recycling Netwerk Benelux teamed up to launch the End Double Packaging campaign. With this campaign we call upon consumers to send in cases of overpackaging and double packaging to Fost Plus, the organization that represents the packaging industry in Belgium. Besides that, we also call on consumers to refuse to buy cases of double packaging.
With this campaign, we hope to reach the producers and supermarkets so that they can take responsibility towards a more sustainable way of packaging products. The message is simple: when consumers see a case of double packaging in supermarkets, they take a photo of it and send it to the form of Fost Plus. Besides that, consumers can also share the cases of double packaging they find online with the hashtag #EndDoublePackaging.
The organization Canal It Up – which works towards cleaner waterways in Brussels – carried out an extensive research showing that Colruyt is the biggest polluter of the Brussels canals. Following this research, the Colruyt group claims to be working on innovative solutions to prevent plastic pollution. The team of Canal It Up decided to put the retailer to the test. They went shopping in the Colruyt of Jette and found 171 cases of double packaging. This extra plastic wrap has only 1 function: sell more products. These multipacks are created by Colruyt itself, as producers deliver their products without these extra layers of plastic. However, Colruyt is not the only supermarket using double packaging, as cases of double packaging can be found in different supermarkets in Belgium, as can be seen in the video.
examples of double packaging that were found in Colruyt in Jette
Beyond the needless use of plastic, overpackaging poses several other issues:
Plastics contain additives that pose health risks.
Globally, 430 million tons of plastics are produced yearly, equivalent to the weight of the entire world population, and production is increasing.
Double packaging like that of Colruyt may lead to extra food waste by encouraging customers to buy more than they need and then throwing it away, contributing to the 58 million tons wasted in Europe annually, with 54% occurring in households. One of the reasons for food waste are excessive purchases.
We have the power!
Consumers have the power to make retailers change their ways. A recent report by Recycling Netwerk on packaging waste prevention and reuse in Belgium identified empowered consumers as a powerful group to demand a reduction in packaging. We encourage everyone visiting Belgian supermarkets to report overpackaging or double packaging via the website of Fost Plus, and, to refuse buying double packaged products.
“Recycling is not the solution,” says Recycling Network Benelux. After more than 20 years, our environmental organization is ready for a new name. We’re preparing a transformation that includes a new website and an ambitious plan for the future.
Recycling Netwerk Benelux is an environmental organization that works to reduce the impact of resources and combat environmental pollution. Our main topics are deposits, reuse, UPV, cigarette filters and textiles. We analyze policies, make recommendations and try to contribute to an informed debate.
Would you like to stay informed? Then sign up for our newsletter.
Full report (EN) Each region of Belgium has a different litter policy. Flanders has a -20% target for 2022 compared to 2015, which has not been achieved. In Wallonia and Brussels, agreements on litter are less clearly formulated and there is a lack of proper monitoring. In no region is litter tackled at the source.
Each region of Belgium has a different litter policy. Flanders has a -20% target for 2022 compared to 2015, which has not been achieved. In Wallonia and Brussels, agreements on litter are less clearly formulated and there is a lack of proper monitoring. In no region is litter tackled at the source.
The industry also pays very little for the litter they cause. For Flanders this amounts to 9.6 million euros, while the clean-up costs amount to no less than 161 million. The majority of the costs are born by municipalities.
Rob Buurman, director of Recycling Netwerk: ‘There is a lot of talk about litter, but the approach is limited to clean-up actions and communication campaigns. Clean-up actions are valuable initiatives if volunteers are committed to them, but we also expect effective policy from the government.’
This report on litter is the third in a series of papers on producer responsibility (EPR) in Belgium and was carried out by consultant Maxine Von Eye. Below we focus on four crucial lessons from the report.
Lesson 1: focus on litter, not on citizen
The policy is mainly aimed at raising awareness among citizens, while producers can continue to sell more and more disposable packaging. 75 percent of our litter consists of disposable packaging , but its manufacturers remain unaffected. The current approach to litter is mainly beneficial for the industry.
Proposal: Tackling litter should follow the waste hierarchy, which means that prevention and reuse of packaging are given priority. Single-use packaging is should be replaced by reusable packaging, especially for take-away . If single-use packaging is used, it is better collected, such as with a deposit system.
Lesson 2: Improve litter monitoring
Measurements indicate that litter is a bigger problem in Wallonia and – especially -in Brussels than in Flanders, but there is a lack of proper monitoring and follow-up.
Proposal: Wallonia and Brussels should learn from the Flemish detailed methodology for measuring litter, both in terms of clean-up costs and quantities. Harmonization and accuracy of the monitoring is essential as packaging producers pay part of those litter costs.
Lesson 3: make industry pay for litter, but reduce their on the decisions
Organizations such as Mooimakers (government initiative) in Flanders and Be WaPP in Wallonia are largely financed and determined by the packaging industry. For example, the Mooimakers steering group consists of representatives from Comeos, Fevia and Fost Plus. No wonder that only business-friendly campaigns are set up.
Proposal: reduce the influence of the packaging industry on litter policy. Make producers pay the full costs if their packaging ends up as litter. If the amount of litter decreases, costs should also decrease. According to the (not yet final) Cooperation Agreement on Litter & EPR between Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia, these costs would drop significantly if a deposit was introduced. The reduction in costs for producers should depend on results, not on the simple introduction of a deposit.
Lesson 4: stop useless pilot projects and focus on proven solutions
The study also evaluated The Click project. This reward system from the industry has been rolled out across 12 Belgian municipalities. In Antwerp the project was stopped because it had no effect on litter. The study shows that The Click does not have a significant impact on litter in other places either.
Proposal: implement proven solutions against litter, such as a classic deposit system that can reduce litter by tens of percent
While the negotiations about the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) are still open, fifty organizations from 13 European countries make a call for the implementation of a solid and effective Deposit Return System (DRS) for beverage containers in all members states.
In the context of the climate and resource crisis, and given the ambition of the EU, a broad platform of almost fifty organizations from 13 European countries wants to remind the Council representatives that there is still time to raise the ambition of the final PPWR wording. This can be done, among others, by assuring the key role of a solid Deposit Return System (DRS), a necessary tool to ensure true circularity for single-use beverage containers.
It is worth noting that in the Plenary, all amendments aimed at making DRS voluntary for Members States were rejected by the European Parliament (EP), showing a firm position of the EP, in line with the original proposal by the European Commission, to have DRS become the norm in Europe. However, the wording of article 44 on DRS, as a result of the EP’s vote, lacks the ambition and the strength of the initial wording of the Commission and could open the door to critical shortcuts and loopholes that could delay the implementation of DRS all over Europe.
Raising back the threshold for exemption from adopting national DRSs to a 90% collection rate instead of the 85% in the text proposed by the Parliament
Phasing out any escape route to countries opposing the introduction of a DRS such as the possibility of presenting a ‘plan of action’ to reach the 85% target while ignoring the spirit of the legislation and the targets already fixed in the SUP directive.
Avoiding any mention of ‘digital’ DRS’s, which is an alternative proposed – but not implemented anywhere – made up by industry to avoid the real implementation of proven DRS.
Why do we need a solid and effective DRS?
It is the only measure assuring separate collection rates of beverage containers above 90%;
The collection of high-quality materials allows for both:
Closed-loop recycling (packaging-to-packaging) given maximized use of materials;
Compatibility with reuse schemes (by enabling the infrastructure of such schemes) which supports compliance with the reuse targets proposed by the PPWR itself;
It minimises littering of beverage containers, contributing to reduced costs for local authorities and reduced leakage of resources from circular management.
Alexis Eisenberg, Director France and Francophonie, Reloop Platform (France): “The European Commission and Parliament endorse mandatory DRS in the PPWR, a pivotal text shaping the next decade of Europe’s packaging sector. DRS, a potent EPR tool, achieves high collection rates, closed-loop recycling, and reuse. The Council must now strengthen this support, with a crucial call from France to join the cause. Despite having DRS provisions in its anti-waste law (AGEC, 2020), France has struggled to break the status quo, leading to 8 billion plastic bottles and cans wasted per year. It’s time to propel mandatory DRS for a more circular Europe”
Chloé Schwizgebel, project coordinator at Recycling Netwerk Benelux (Belgium): “A strong DRS legislation in the PPWR is fully aligned with the large ambitions of Belgium in terms of recycling, prevention, reuse as well as litter reduction. The Belgian governments are themselves preparing for the introduction of a DRS in 2025. Going for anything else than a mandatory DRS would not make sense from the Belgian presidency perspective.”
Miquel Roset, director of Retorna (Spain): “The Spanish presidency and the permanent representatives from Spain need to keep fighting for the best possible outcome for the PPWR, as the Presidency has shown to aim for so far with a mandatory Deposit Return System. Without a DRS, every day in Spain, 35 million beverage containers are either landfilled, incinerated or littered. We support any effort by Spain to stick to such commitment and dismiss proposals to water ambition down. We need a DRS so we can reuse or recycle into new containers these containers”.
Next steps in the process
Last 22nd of November, the European Parliament voted in their Plenary session an amended version of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which will be the basis for the negotiatory position of the EP; concurrently, the Council is preparing its own position, which is due to be defined in the next few weeks. The Trilogue negotiations, expected to start in December, will be the last stop for this legislation.
Fost Plus has been publishing the most spectacular recycling figures for years. For some materials we even achieve more than 100%. How is it possible that we recycle more in Belgium than we consume? How do we do that while there is still so much litter? The figures have been questioned and criticized several times (Recover , 2018; RNB , 2018). Now RNB has published a detailed report that clearly shows that Fost Plus’s figures are incorrect.
This report on the inflated recycling figures is part of a large-scale study into the performance of Fost Plus. This series of reports comes at a crucial time: Fost Plus’ 5-year contract expires at the end of this year. RNB advises the Belgian government to impose strict conditions on new recognition.
The Belgian recycling figures are good. But not as well as Fost Plus dares to communicate. Because claiming that you recycle 105% of all ferrous metals and even 123% of all glass ( 2022 report ) is misleading.
Fost Plus is creative with the data. They compare everything they collect for recycling with only what their members put on the market, which is not the entire Belgian packaging market. So that’s how you get sky-high percentages.
According to our calculations, 59% of our PMD is currently recycled, and not 64.8% as Fost Plus claims (see the report for the calculation). An additional 18,000 tons of PMD would have to be recycled to really reach 64.8%. This is no less than 900 million plastic bottles .
Chloé Schwizgebel, RNB: “ Fost Plus’ creative accounting must stop. It is important that policy is formed on the basis of transparent and complete data. The new recognition for Fost Plus must include strict rules on data collection and reporting .”
How can it be better?
Will Fost Plus continue to exaggerate its recycling results for another five years? We cannot allow that. That is why we provide concrete recommendations in this report for the next recognition. We recommend, among other things:
Clear rules on what may be included in the calculation for recycling and selective collection. These must be in accordance with European standards, which is not yet the case.
Transparent spreadsheets with full data, such as in Germany (see p21)
Real focus on higher recyclability of packaging (see p10)
Financial incentives for more reusable packaging (see p10)
Deposit to increase returns and avoid litter
Fost Plus has already taken steps towards better recycling. But we need more ambition, also in the field of prevention and reuse (see our first report). We urge governments to raise the bar for Fost Plus, to strive for a truly circular Belgium.
Fost Plus is making no effort to reduce and make packaging more sustainable, according to research by Recycling Netwerk Benelux. Although prevention and reuse of packaging should be a priority by law, the amount of packaging is actually increasing. The Belgian governments are still not intervening. RNB urges politicians to let go of the obsession on recycling and to focus on broader sustainability of packaging.
[Press release]
To stay within the planetary boundaries, all sectors must become more sustainable. The environmental impact of the packaging sector is huge so reducing waste must be the priority. The stakes are high: if in Europe 50% of all packaging – food, drinks and household products – were reusable, this would save 3.7 MT CO2 and 28 million tonnes of material every year. Every year, an average European makes about 170 kilograms of packaging waste.
Give Fost Plus real targets
In Belgium, Fost Plus is responsible for making their packaging more sustainable on behalf of all household packaging companies. The Interregional Packaging Commission (IRPC) oversees Fost Plus on behalf of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. This is laid down in the Interregional Cooperation Agreement on Packaging and in Fost Plus accreditation, which expires at the end of 2023. Negotiations for a new accreditation are currently ongoing. RNB calls for prevention and reuse to be central to the new accreditation.
Rob Buurman: “The current packaging policy suits a classic linear economy. Single-use packaging is not questioned in its core, instead only collection and recycling are targeted.”
The five main findings around reuse and prevention from the report:
The amount of packaging and therefore packaging waste is increasing per capita
The law states that the proportion of reusable packaging versus single-use packaging may not decrease, but it has done so over the past 20 years.
Companies are required to submit prevention plans to the IVC, but these are not made public. It is not clear what they contain and also unclear what the government does with them. It gives the impression of a bureaucratic exercise without effect or consequence.
There is a hotline to report examples of over-packaging, but the hotline is hard to find and there seems to be no monitoring or follow-up on what is reported.
Supervision of Fost Plus’ activities seems minimal or absent and the government does not intervene when legal requirements are not met.
Rob Buurman: “There is a lack of transparency in policy and enforcement of legal objectives. The targets and obligations are not ambitious, yet they are not even complied with or have no measurable effect.”
Recommendations
In the study, Recycling Netwerk Benelux makes a series of recommendations for policy improvements. The organisation calls for more transparency and ambitious targets for prevention and reuse. Also, at least 5% of Fost Plus’s budget should be used for reusable packaging systems, something that is already standard in France.
The study
This report is part of a broader research with the aim of taking the discussion on extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging to a higher level, and encouraging better policies for prevention and reuse. Several publications will follow in the coming months. The study looks at data from packaging waste and the agreements made. Contact was made with Fost Plus, the Interregional Packaging Commission and stakeholders from the waste value chain.
As part of this investigation, we sent 2 over-packaged products to the hotline: Liège waffles and bottles of detergent. We only received notification that our complaint was forwarded to the producer. Otherwise, there was no follow-up or involvement from Fost Plus.
In Fost Plus' communications, there are only 2 tiny examples of waste prevention: Carrefour replacing fruit and vegetable stickers with laser printing and Coca-Cola removing handles on the foils around plastic drink bottles. We need more ambitious projects to get the waste numbers down.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes are flawed for various reasons. We already wrote about the governance issues surrounding EPR and the way in which it does not sufficiently address product design in e.g. the textile sector. A new report by Circular Economy Lab (CEL) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) places the focus on another flaw: discarded electronic devices and vehicles are often given ‘another life’ outside of Europe, mostly by shipping them to African countries. By doing so, the end-of-life costs that are supposed to be paid by producers under EPR schemes, do not follow the products when shipped abroad. If the products would effectively be reused locally, this might not even pose a big problem. However, the report shows that the products received are often used products that no longer function, hence they should be labeled waste instead of ‘reusable products’. As an example, Hinckley recycling group based in Nigeria states that around 70% of the products they import labeled as ‘Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment’ (UEEE) is effectively waste. When waste is shipped from Europe to African countries, we are essentially shifting the waste burden from Europe to African communities. This is not only a financial burden, but also an environmental, social and health-related one.
When looking at the different national EPR-schemes, the report by CEL and EEB mentions that there is a lack of harmonization between national policies, creating data-reporting and cross-border transfers issues. In order to tackle the aforementioned problems, CEL and EEB propose several measures, including a redesign of EPR schemes in order to create a transfer of EPR fees from the EU towards Africa for the waste management costs.
The problem with exports of used goods and waste
Problems around the export of waste are not limited to used vehicles and electronics that were studied in the report of CEL and EEB, but also arise in the case of e.g. plastics and textiles. In 2021, the Netherlands alone exported more than 200 million kilograms of plastic waste, making it EU’s largest exporter to non-OECD countries. Similar to what is happening with cars and electronics, when plastics are shipped, they end up being burned or landfilled locally, because the appropriate infrastructure in those communities is lacking. This can be seen as a form of waste colonialism, which entails the idea that rich countries export waste to be dealt with out of their sight, thereby burdening local communities with the negative consequences of the waste management. The lack of appropriate waste management systems in the receiving country leads to great negative impacts for the local environment, the health of the communities and gives rise to social issues.
In Europe, many countries have EPR-schemes in place for various product groups (a.o. batteries, packaging, tires) in order to make producers pay for the end-of-life management of their products. Producers pay a fee that is linked to how much they put on the market, that covers the costs for adequate waste collection and handling. The EPR-system does not take into account that when products are shipped abroad, producers effectively get a free pass for the end-of-life management costs. Instead of being placed on the producers, the financial burden is shifted onto the receiving country. Given that producers will look for ways to keep their costs as low as possible, this loophole undermines the effectiveness of the EPR-legislation. For a circular and sustainable economy to work, we need inclusive policies that do not only look at the wellbeing of the environment and societies within Europe, but also beyond. European legislation thus needs to put an end to this practice of exporting goods that cannot be used and are effectively waste, and producers need to take their full financial responsibility in the end-of-life management of their goods.
How could this be done? One of the ideas is so-called Ultimate Producer Responsibility (UPR). Thapa et al., researchers at Utrecht University, argue that with UPR “the financial responsibility for collecting and recycling according to the highest possible value retention option (R hierarchies) falls upon the manufacturers, no matter where the product geographically is finally collected and recycled”. In practice, this means that Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) in several countries should be connected to each other in order to transfer fees to the location where the actual end-of-life management takes place.
One of the prerequisites to make this system function well, is greater transparency and traceability. The current transparency issues – not knowing what is shipped by whom, combined with a lack of traceability – could potentially be dealt with through better monitoring and reporting. According to CEL and EEB this could take the shape of training border control employees and custom agents, combined with testing the actual contents of what is being shipped. This should be enforced through better legislation (within the WEEE Directive and ELV Directive) that also stipulates what exactly constitutes ‘used’ items and when something becomes ‘waste’. However, as we know from experience around the (illegal) shipment of plastic waste, custom-related procedures are relatively easy to bypass through misdeclaration practices. Furthermore, the bigger ports in Europe, like those in Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Antwerp (Belgium), would disproportionately carry the burden of improved controls, while the whole of Europe uses those ports for their exports. The question is whether those practices can be ended through the mere training of border control and custom agents.
Specifically for used vehicles, even if the EPR fee does stay associated with it when shipped abroad, the specificities of the different materials that are part of a vehicle, like batteries, tyres, electronics and textiles are often overlooked. This then leads to improper disposal of those materials. Therefore, a Digital Product Passport (DPP) – including repair instructions, information on proper recycling and the product’s environmental impact – could be applied to all those materials, thereby creating better traceability and monitoring of the various materials (if implemented EU wide). This would also make it more difficult to export the separate parts of vehicles in an illegal manner, according to CEL and EEB.
General problems related to waste management fees
Where the export of used products and waste provides us with a very clear example of the limited effectiveness of the EPR fees, even the waste management that happens within countries where the EPR-scheme is active is insufficient. This is due to the fact that the fees only cover those waste products that are separately collected. Meaning that all products that are not separately collected, either because they are disposed of in the wrong way or because the collection system is flawed, end up being paid for by public money. As an example, only 42% of the 12 megatonnes of electronic waste produced by Europeans in 2019 was collected adequately, leaving 58% unaccounted for. This is also why in our policy recommendations for a.o. EPR for textiles in The Netherlands, we advised to make PROs also responsible for the fraction that is not separately collected in order to encourage them to collect as much as possible.
Environment Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) took the initiative to introduce a deposit when the monitoring of litter of OVAM showed that 18,171 tonnes of litter still need to be cleaned up every year in Flanders.
The Flemish government gave permission in late December to test the Belgian packaging industry’s proposal for a digital deposit system through pilot projects. Under the digital deposit system, two codes have to be scanned before you can throw a packaging in the blue bag at home or in ‘public blue bins’. The minister asked that the evaluation of this system be done in 2023.
The final goal is to introduce deposits on bottles and cans by 2025 with a system that is technically feasible and accessible to all. Obviously, this system should also effectively contribute to drastically reducing litter and promoting the circularity of high-value materials.
Environment minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) explained that if the digital system is not superior to a classic deposit system, she will go ahead with the introduction of the classic system. With this known system, people get money back when they return empty cans and bottles at points of sale. OVAM confirmed her announcement in a call to companies willing to play a role in setting up the system.
Digital Deposit Return System
A digital deposit system has not yet been implemented anywhere in the world. There is no practical example of whether and how it would work. Besides, there are no empirical data available and it is unsure whether the same results can be achieved with this system as with the classic system. There are only a few studies on the matter, including the study “Every Packaging Counts – DDRS Blueprint” that the Belgian packaging industry commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
PwC’s study was delivered to the packaging industry at the end of September 2022. The industry didn’t publish the study for a few months. Only after the government decision of introducing a deposit and under the pressure of the opposition and media did minister Demir decided to make the study public. That was on 13 January 2023, three weeks after the Flemish government’s decision.
Study commissioned by the industry
We analysed this blueprint on digital DRS from PwC. The objective of this study is clear: the packaging industry commissioned PwC to produce a report that could “serve as a clear, figure-based argument as to why this approach is better than the traditional deposit system“. That is why we also take a critical look at the study, pointing out its limitations and the questions that remain to be answered.
Our analysis presents both systems, including their respective costs and timeline for implementation. We look at whether the digital system is as effective as the conventional one in terms of waste reduction, return rate of high-value materials and potential for reuse.
The PwC study does not prove that introducing a digital deposit by 2025 is feasible, quite the contrary. Nor does the PwC study show that a digital DRS would be effective in reducing litter – something the traditional deposit has proven and is still proving to do in neighbouring countries.
Our analysis highlights the many risks for consumers: exclusion of people who do not have access to the internet or a bank account. Only half of the Belgian population has the necessary digital skills. The need to share personal data and the risks of fraud or abuse of the system are also problematic for users. These obstacles jeopardise the use of the system and thus its success.
Our analysis shows that digital DRS would not meet the objectives of improving the quality of recycling or aligning with European standards on recycling. This is highly problematic as Europe plans a rapid transition to a more circular economy at the European level. The effect on litter has also not been demonstrated. This is concerning as fighting litter was the very reason why minister Zuhal Demir announced the introduction of a deposit system.
The PwC study shows that a digital system would require a significant contribution from the Belgian municipalities. Be it the installation of more than 136,000 additional public bins or the possible management of home scanners for households.
Many elements have yet to be clarified in the study: the cost-benefit analysis lacks data and contains incorrect calculations. The governance layer of the study is missing.
Conclusion
Our analysis shows that the feasibility of the digital system is far from proven. Consequently, it is unrealistic that digital deposits can be launched by the 2025 deadline. More worryingly, the study fails to show whether the digital system would achieve the intended goals: reducing litter and increasing recycling quality. Why to set up a system that is not proven to work? Especially when the traditional system works and is being set up in an increasing amount of European countries. Finally, this system would not be accessible to all consumers, and places an unnecessary budgetary and organisational burden on municipalities.
Environmental organisation Recycling Netwerk Benelux supports the Flemish government’s intention to have a working deposit system in place, in consultation with the two other regions, by 2025. The plan is to introduce a deposit of 20 to 25 eurocents on all plastic bottles and cans up to 3 litres.
However, the Flemish government’s choice to first give industry the option to experiment with a scan-system in 2023 (where consumers have to get their deposit back by scanning QR codes on packaging and the blue bag), is a huge risk of delay, postponement and cancellation. It would have been better to make things clear immediately and to require retails to give consumers their deposits back.
To avoid delay, we call on the government to prepare sufficient guarantees that the deposit system can actually start in 2025. To do so, in parallel with the sector’s experiment, the government needs to develop a solid plan for a return-to-retail system. The involvement of societal stakeholders such as municipalities, consumer organisations and environmental organisations is essential, both in the experiments on the scan-system and in the further elaboration of the traditional system.
Scan-system
Research shows that the scan-system proposed by the packaging sector is not yet ready for use. Such a deposit system which requires consumers scan QR-codes to get their money back does not yet exist anywhere in the world. It is not clear at all when the technology will be market ready, if it can be.
According to Statistiek Vlaanderen, 46 per cent of Flemings lack basic digital skills. So there is a risk that many people will have troubles to get their deposit back with a QR-code system that requires a smartphone. Besides a smartphone, ‘home scanners’ could be used to recover the deposit, but these too require the presence of an internet connection and a link to a bank account. There are questions here about how consumers will get their money back and whether privacy will be sufficiently guaranteed.
There are also technical challenges: the technology to print individual QR-codes at a high-speed on cans, has yet to be invented. A completely new and complex system also needs to be set up at the IT level. So there are many and very fundamental questions that should be solved before the end of 2023.
The question is also whether the plan is in line with the European trajectory around the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. On 30 November, the European Commission presented this new regulation which aims at encouraging refillable packaging, among other things. Belgium’s future system will also have to make sure that beverage bottles can be reused.
Transparency
The packaging industry commissioned a study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and lobbied for a digital scan-system based on it, but it refuses to make the study public. It is important that further knowledge gathering and experimentations in 2023 are made transparently if a good decision is to be made for a deposit system.
In doing so, the well-known deposit systems with Return-to-retail model exist for years in 48 regions of the world in 2020, among which more than a dozen in Europe alone. Those systems prove every day that they work . There are no questions here about market readiness, privacy or digital skills.
We therefore continue to ask the environment ministers of the 3 regions to set-up a deposit system that has proven its effectiveness against litter, towards improving recycling and enabling reuse. According to us, that still means with collection by supermarkets and retails, as is the case in countries with the most successful systems.
Last modified: February 2024.
More and more governments in Europe are deciding to introduce deposits on cans and plastic bottles. The pace has accelerated since the approval of the European directive on single-use plastics in 2019. The Single Use Plastic Directive (SUPD) stipulates that all plastic bottles must contain at least 25% recycled content by 2025, and that member states must collect 90% of plastic bottles separately by 2029. One Member State after another is therefore deciding to introduce deposits and thus combats litter and plastic pollution. In this article we discuss the decisions of governments and parliaments in European Member States.
Figure 1 – European countries where Return to retail-DRS has been introduced, voted on or is being discussed.
On September 8, 2022, Léonore Gewessler announced that the deposit will be operational in 2025. The deposit amount will be €0.25 and will apply to all packaging between 0.1 and 3 liters. There is only one exception, milk, because of the risk of spoilage. Austrians will be able to return their empty drinks containers at all points of sale and receive a deposit back. This is also possible in train stations and container parks. “The goal is to design the most effective deposit system in all of Europe,” said climate minister Gewessler.
The Austrian government of conservatives and greens also wants to demand that from 2023, i.e. next year, 25% of drinks sold are sold in reusable drinks packaging. That figure should rise to 40% in 2025 and 55% in 2030. A Research Affairs poll in August 2020 shows that 81% of Austrians are in favor of a deposit on PET bottles and 76% are in favor of a deposit on cans.
Hungary
Hungary has introduced the deposit system since January 1, 2024. The system is managed by the system administrator MOHU (MOL Hulladékgazdálkodási Zrt.). The system includes single-use drink packaging in metal, glass and plastic with a capacity of 0.1 liter to 3 liters (excluding dairy products). Consumers pay a 50 Hungarian forint (approximately €0.13) deposit when purchasing a drink in scope and all points of sale with an area of more than 400 m2 must accept empty packaging. Many other points of sale also participate voluntarily and manually in the take-back system.
Ireland
The Irish government of Conservatives, Christian Democrats, Liberals and Greens announced in September 2020 that deposits will be introduced in the third quarter of 2022. Despite a delay of more than a year in introducing the system, plastic cans and bottles can now also be returned in stores from February 1, 2024 . The system is managed by Re-turn .
Luxembourg
The Luxembourg parliament approved the deposit law on May 5, 2022 . There will be one national deposit system for all beverage packaging placed on the Luxembourg market. The deposit amount varies from 10 cents to 1 euro, depending on the type of packaging. The amount of the deposit per type of beverage packaging, the detailed timetable for its introduction and the requirements for the organization of the sector are specified in a Grand Ducal Regulation.
Lithuania voted its deposit legislation for single-use cans and bottles in February 2016. The deposit is the same for all packaging and amounts to € 0.10 per bottle or can. The deposit system is managed by Užstato Sistemos Administratorius. The plastic bottle return rate for plastic bottles has been increasing dramatically : it was 34% before the deposit scheme, 74.3% at the end of 2016, 91.9% at the end of 2017 and 93% in 2018. Deposits were introduced during the Butkevičius government, consisting of Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives and Christian Democrats.
Malta
In Malta, the government signed the deposit regulations for beverage containers in 2020. The start of the system is expected in 2022, the date will be announced later in the year. The system came into effect on November 14, 2022. The deposit is 0.10 euros for all aluminum and steel cans and glass and PET bottles with a capacity of 0.1 to 3 liters. Dairy products, fruit juices, wine and alcohol with an alcoholic strength by volume of more than 5.0% are currently exempt from this system.
The Netherlands
The Dutch Rutte III government decided in April 2020 that there will be a deposit on all small plastic bottles from July 1, 2021. The government of liberal parties VVD and D66 and Christian Democrats of CDA and CU expanded the existing deposit system on large plastic bottles to all plastic bottles. Beverage producers Coca-Cola Netherlands and Spadel Netherlands have shown their support for the expansion of the system. Since the deposit guarantees the quality of the plastic and sufficient recycling of PET, Coca-Cola has chosen the Netherlands as the second country where it will sell 100% recycled plastic bottles.
The instructions quickly gave results in terms of cleanliness. Only six months after the introduction of the deposit on small bottles, the Ministry of Rijkswaterstaat counted a 41 percent reduction in small bottles in nature between December 2021 and 2022.
The government of Poland decided on June 2, 2022 that there will be a deposit on cans and bottles next year. The deposit system applies to disposable and reusable glass bottles up to 1.5 liters, PET bottles up to 3 liters and aluminum cans up to 1 liter. There will be a take-back obligation for stores of more than 100 m². Smaller outlets will be able to join the system voluntarily.
Romania
In October 2021, the Romanian government decided to introduce a deposit system. Since November 30, 2023, packaging can be returned to any point of sale that sells drinks. The deposit is of be 0.50 ron (0.20 euro) and all beverage packaging made of glass, plastic and metal with a volume between 0.1 and 3 liters are included.
Slovakia
In Slovakia, the parliament passed a law in September 2019 that introduces a deposit scheme for PET bottles and cans from 2022. All stores with an area of more than 300 square meters need to take back empty packagings. The deposit is €0.15. The operator Slovensko zálohuje manages the system. It immediately showed impressive results. In just one year, the return rate for returnable packaging has risen from 60% to 70%.
Government statements and debates in 9 European countries
Belgium
In Belgium there is a deposit on some reusable glass bottles, such as for beer. The debate about the introduction of deposits on cans and plastic bottles has been going on for more than ten years. In Belgium, deposits are the responsibility of the regions of Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. In 2018, the industry was given a last chance to tackle the growing litter with awareness and fines. However, the amount of litter is still growing.
In 2017 and 2018, hundreds of municipalities, companies and organizations joined the Deposit Alliance, which asks regional governments to quickly introduce deposits for all cans and plastic bottles. In 2019, the new governments of Flanders,Brussels and Wallonia wrote the possible introduction of deposits in their coalition agreements. In 2021, more than 100 Walloon municipalities and 200 Flemish municipalities are part of the Deposit Alliance. The opposition parties in Flanders (Vooruit and Groen) and Wallonia (Les Engagés) put proposals on the table of their respective parliaments to introduce such a system. Walloon Environment Minister Céline Tellier (Ecolo) launched a study into the implementation of deposits in 2022. In the summer of 2022, the municipality of Bredene conducted a successful pilot project with deposits. On September 6, 2022, the Environment Minister of Flanders, Zuhal Demir (N-VA), said that deposits are unavoidable and that the Flemish government will decide in 2022 based on the latest figures on litter.
The new accreditation 2024-2028 of the PRO responsible for household waste management (Fost Plus) provides for the introduction of a deposit system for all cans and bottles, under cover of an agreement between the three regions (article 2).
Greece
In May 2021, the Eunomia research group and the Association of Greek Packaging Manufacturers called on the Greek government to introduce a deposit system in the country. Greece has committed to introducing a national deposit system from July, 2023, as part of the new national legislation on waste, recycling and circular economy.
France
In France, Minister Brune Poirson (of the liberal party En Marche) stated on July 10, 2019 that the French government wants to introduce deposits on plastic bottles and cans. She received the support of French supermarkets and beverage manufacturers, including multinationals that are also active in Belgium and the Netherlands. Due to pressure from conservative mayors in the French Senate, the project has been postponed until 2023. The introduction of a DRS for reusable drinks has been announced in July 2023, a decree proposition is currently discussed in the Parliament. At the same time, DRS for recycling has been postponed by the previous Minister of the Environment Christophe Béchu in September 2023.
Italy
A partnership of non-governmental organizations National Association of Comuni Virtuosi, Greenpeace Italia, Oxfam, WWF Italia and Zero Waste Italy, has joined forces to support the introduction of a mandatory national deposit system for beverage packaging in Italy. The campaign, entitled “ Buon Rendere – molto più di un vuoto “, is the first national initiative for a deposit system in Italy. In November 2021, they made a joint appeal to the Draghi government and to Roberto Cingolani, the Italian Minister for Ecological Transition, to accelerate the introduction of an effective deposit system in the country.
Portugal
A pilot project for a nationwide deposit system was launched in Portugal in March 2020 with the support of the Portuguese food industry and beverage manufacturers. The government has introduced the legal decree providing for the introduction of a deposit system by 2022. However, no decision has yet been made on the practical aspects of this introduction. The Marine Environment Research Association has launched a petition asking the government to introduce the deposit system quickly and effectively.
Serbia
The director of the Serbian Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), Filip Radović, has announced that the introduction of a deposit system in Serbia to regulate the return and disposal of packaging waste could be discussed in 2019. Although the topic of deposits has been on the table for many years, no decision has been made so far.
Slovenia
Slovenian Environment Minister Andrej Vizjak supported environmental NGO Eko Krog’s proposal to introduce a deposit system in 2021. The association of beverage manufacturers supports the proposal because the system will ensure better separate collection of beverage bottles.
At the level of the United Kingdom, the government of Theresa May (Conservatives) announced a deposit scheme for drinks containers in March 2018. The Blue Planet II series had brought attention to the threat of ocean pollution. In July 2019, the British government stated that it is targeting 2023 to have a fully functioning deposit system. A poll by Populus in June 2020 shows that 84% of Britons are in favor of a deposit on all drinks packaging.
The government of Scotland led by Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party announced in May 2019 the plan to introduce deposits on plastic bottles, glass bottles and cans . The Scottish Parliament voted in favor of the deposit scheme in May 2020. It is scheduled to start in August 2023. The system covers all drinks sold in PET plastic, metal and glass. There will be a fixed deposit of 20 pence (0.23 euros) for all formats.
In January 2023, details of the introduction of the deposit system in the United Kingdom, Wales and Northern Ireland were revealed. The systems in each region must be in place by October 1, 2025. All PET bottles and aluminum and steel cans will be included in the system (between 50 ml and 3 liters). Glass bottles will only be included in the Welsh system. The points of sale must take back the packaging placed on the market (take-back obligation).
Eight European countries that have had deposits for some time
Croatia
In Croatia, since 2006, there has been a deposit of 0.5 Croatian Kuna on non-refillable containers with a minimum volume of 200 ml. Retailers larger than 200 m² are obliged to take back containers. The government administers the scheme. There is a collection target of 95%. Since 2015, deposits have returned 90% of all non-refillable packaging on the Croatian market.
Denmark
Denmark introduced the first national deposit system in 1922. In 1991 and 1993 it expanded to include plastic bottles. Dansk Retursystem , a private non-profit organization manages the system. In 2019, the system achieved a total efficiency of 92%.
Estonia
Estonia has had a universal deposit and recycling system for single-use and refillable packaging since 2005. The deposit is €0.10 on most metal, plastic and glass beverage containers. The system is managed by Eesti Pandipakend , a producer responsibility organization representing the Estonian Association of Brewers, the Association of Producers of Soft Drinks, the Association of Importers of Soft Drinks and Beer and the Estonian Association of Retailers.
Finland
Finland first introduced the deposit system in 1952 on glass bottles – at the same time as the Summer Olympics that brought Coca-Cola to the country – in glass bottles. In the 1980s, some reusable and sustainable plastic bottles were included in the deposit system. Deposits were introduced on aluminum cans in 1996, on PET bottles in 2008 and on recycled glass bottles in 2012. Suomen palautuspakkaus Oy (abbreviated Palpa), a private consortium of beverage importers and manufacturers, runs the system.
Germany
In Germany, the deposit system has been in place for seventeen years , since 2003. There is a deposit on plastic, cans and glass beverage containers. The standard deposit amount has been 0.25 euros since 2016. The deposit is higher for disposable packaging than for reusable packaging, such as glass bottles. 97 to 99% of single-use bottles are returned. The recycling rate of tin is approximately 99% . In January 2021, the German government of Angela Merkel (CDU – SPD – CSU) approved a new Packaging Law , Verpackungsgesetz . The deposit on packaging of juices and alcoholic drinks has been in force since January 2022 and will be extended to dairy products in 2024 . Germany has had a deposit ( Pfand ) on plastic bottles and cans for a long time , since 2003. But juices, wine and milk were excluded. The new Packaging Act therefore only looks at the packaging, and not at what drinks it contains.
Iceland
Iceland has had a national-scale deposit system for plastic, aluminum and glass beverage containers since 1989 .
Norway
Norway adopted a deposit law in 1999. In 2018, rates increased to NOK 2 for small bottles and cans and NOK 3 for large bottles. Infinitum AS (formerly Norsk Resirk) is responsible for implementing the national recycling program for non-refillable plastic bottles and beverage cans. The non-profit organization was founded in 1999. It is owned by companies and organizations in the beverage and food industries.
The Norwegian system works in such a way that the environmental burden decreases as the return increases. This means that, for example, a 90 percent return for cans translates into a 90 percent discount on environmental taxes.
Sweden
In Sweden, aluminum cans have had a deposit system since 1984 and PET bottles since 1994. Pantamera is responsible for the deposit system for aluminum cans and PET bottles.
The race for deposits
We can therefore speak of a real race for deposits. The debate about plastic pollution is happening everywhere. The Member States of the European Union are working hard on legislation to do something about it. The pace varies from country to country, but the direction is the same.
The popularity of deposits is also increasing at the borders of the European Union. In January 2019, Turkey decided to introduce a deposit on all beverage containers within four years. With 80 million inhabitants, Turkey will be the second largest deposit country in the world after Germany.
As part of the revision of the European Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), the mandatory introduction of a deposit by 2029 is being discussed, along with essential features. This obligation would apply to all countries failing to achieve a certain return rate. The final version of the decision is still awaited (info March 2024).
The deposit on bottles and cans shows itself as an effective measure against litter. The pilot project ran for a full month from 15 July to 15 August 2022. In Bredene, the Twins Club and beach bars sold their plastic bottles and cans with an additional 0.20€ deposit, clearly visible thanks to a sticker placed on them. Consumers could then manually return the packaging and redeem their deposit at each of the three locations which would then put the empty packaging in a box. Simple and effective.
Results
Impact on return rates
The results are clear. More than 6,000 packaging with the deposit sticker was sold. At the end of the pilot, 77.20% of the cans and plastic bottles with a sticker were returned. The results surpassed the expectations of the municipality, which expected a return rate of 50 to 70%.
Impact on litter
Even more important, not a single packaging with a deposit was found on the beach during this period. Indeed, Proper Strandlopers organized two clean-up campaigns to monitor the evolution of litter on the beach during the project. And no packaging with a sticker was found, clearly showing that the deposit reduces drastically the amount of packaging among litter.
This result is in line with the proven effect that a deposit has on litter in other countries. In the Netherlands, the recent monitoring of Dirk de Groot indicates a decrease of 80% of the amount of small plastic bottles in litter, one year after the introduction of the deposit on small plastic bottles. Bredene’s pilot confirmed this impact also in Belgium.
Consumer support
As pointed out by one of the operators of the beach bar Blauwe Brug on Flemishpublic broadcaster VRT, not a single consumer complained about the presence of a deposit on the drinks. This underscores again the large acceptance of the deposit system among consumers. According to several polls (Test-Aankoop, GfK) consumers all over Belgium are in favor of the introduction of a deposit on plastic bottles and cans in order to reduce litter. This pilot project shows that they not only accept the concept of a deposit, they are also actively taking part in it.
Litter problem is growing in Flanders – government action needed
The problem of litter in Belgium has become pressing in the past few years. In Flanders, the government has requested the industry to decrease litter by 20% in 2022, compared to 2015. This decrease is based on the lowest impact expected for a deposit return system according to the analysis of impact made by the official Flemish agency OVAM in 2015. The latest monitoring in 2019 showed an increase of about 14%. While the industry is still reluctant to introduce a DRS, the interest for this system is growing among citizens and municipalities. 70,7% of Flemish municipalities have now joined the Statiegeldalliantie, an alliance that asks the regional governments of Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia to introduce deposits on cans and plastic bottles
Given the clear results and the large support of the pilot project, it becomes clear that a deposit is the most effective way to reduce litter in Belgium. As Bredene mayor Steve Vandenberghe states “the introduction of a deposit is a solution, and perhaps the only one, to reduce litter”. This pilot project shows that, in Belgium too, a deposit return system will have a definite and a clearly positive impact on litter.
Unnoticed, however, they also receive a lot of paper and plastics through their regular letterbox mail. The annual quantity of plastic magazine wrappers is even twice the quantity that is received as parcels in plastic shipping bags. After all, magazines and advertisements are often packed in such plastic wrappers.
87 mln kilos of cardboard and plastic shipping materials via packages
According to Ecommerce News, from all European countries, Dutch consumers are the ones most frequently ordering products online, and their online shopping has increased during the covid-19 pandemic. Almost all these products are packed in additional shipping materials, for example to combine products within an order and/or to protect products during the shipping process.
The quantities of shipping materials for packages are a burden to Dutch consumers, but also on the environment. The production of packaging needs resources, and production leads to a release of potentially hazardous substances. The shipping materials also contribute to consumer waste as the vast majority is designed for single use only.
Dutch-Belgian Environmental ngo Recycling Netwerk Benelux has now quantified that annually about 87 mln kilos of packaging materials are delivered with e-commerce products to Dutch consumers
This 87 mln kilos of packaging materials consists of:
84,1 mln kilos of cardboard shipping boxes
0,8 mln kilos of plastic shipping bags, and
2 mln kilos of filling materials (0,5 mln kilos of paper and 1,5 mln kilos of plastic, of which 1,3 mln kilos bubble wrap).
The filling materials are mainly applied in (form-fixed) cardboard shipping boxes. Next to the ordered goods and filling materials, cardboard shipping boxes also often contain a lot of empty space (50% on average). That empty space causes an unnecessary excess of packaging materials. This contrasts with plastic shipping bags, which can easily be folded to the size of the product and therefore usually do not contain empty spaces.
Also 11 mln kilos paper and plastic shipping materials via regular mail and magazines
Most people are not aware that they also receive considerable quantities of paper and plastic around letters and magazines. Together making up 11 mln kilos annually, of which:
9,5 mln kilos consists of paper envelopes for letters and other information
1,5 mln kilos consists of plastic shipping covers for magazines and advertisements.
That 1,5 mln kilos of plastic shipping covers is the same quantity as the plastic used for the filling materials in the cardboard shipping boxes for parcels and double the quantity of plastic shipping bags for parcels.
Post-delivery has been decreasing for several years in the Netherlands. As such, the attention for package delivery is justified. However, the stealthy current of plastics in shipping covers for magazines also deserves attention. This plastics-stream is not only considerable but also easily prevented with a good old fashioned paper band around magazines or with address stickers around their open side. It would be a good idea if the government takes the initiative for a ban on unnecessary plastic wrappers for magazines.
First underpinned estimate of shipping materials for post and packages
Recycling Netwerk Benelux calculated the amounts of cardboard, paper and plastic by combining quantitative information from several sources with their own measurements. Used sources are amongst others the Post and Package monitor 2020 of the Dutch
Thuiswinkel.org does provide estimates for the quantities of cardboard, paper and packages. However, an underpinning for their estimates is not publicly available.
The quantities of paper and plastic shipping materials for regular letterbox mail had never been quantified before but has now been established by Recycling Netwerk Benelux. All calculations are described in depth in the report.
It should be noted that the report quantifies shipping materials for post and packages for Dutch consumers exclusively. About three-quarters of all regular letterbox mail is for consumers, and just about a quarter is addressed to businesses. In the case of shipped packages, roughly half goes to business addresses or is shipped abroad.
Reusable shipping materials for packages
The environmental organisations Recycling Netwerk Benelux, Natuur en Milieu and Enviu started the program ‘Mission Reuse’ to promote the reuse of packaging. Mission Reuse focuses on the mainstream cardboard shipping boxes, though also pays attention to the plastic shipping bags and filling materials.
On the issue of packaging for e-commerce specifically, Mission reuse works together with the Netherlands Institute for Sustainable Packaging KIDV and Thuiswinkel.org.
In general, consumers prefer reusable over disposable shipping materials. A recent small survey of consumers by Mission Reuse shows that 96% of the respondents would like to have the possibility of choosing reusable packaging. Some 49% are also willing to pay a bit more for that. In case of a deposit return, even 73% chooses reusable. The survey is captured in the more extensive report ‘Reusable shipping materials in e-commerce’. That report also provides an overview of presently available innovations.
Thuiswinkel.org wants to achieve this year a 10% of packages being shipped in reusable cardboard shipping boxes or plastic shipping bags according to her Sustainability plan for the e-commerce sector.
According to an interim monitoring report of Thuiswinkel.org, the empty space in cardboard shipping boxes is about 50% on average with 11,3 litres of air on a volume of 22 litres. Therefore, Thuiswinkel.org aims to reduce this empty space by 10% through more efficient manually folding of the cardboard boxes. It should be noted that manually folding of cardboard shipping boxes as such does not save cardboard. However, it does allow fitting more parcels into the delivery van. Thuiswinkel.org also says to aim for less shipping materials but does not make this concrete with a quantitative target.
Recycling Netwerk Benelux was tasked to quantify shipping materials by Zero Waste Europe as part of the ReuSe Vanguard Project (RSVP). Het RSVP-project aims at “Reusable solutions for packaging for beverages, take-away drinks and food as well as online delivery to get scale in Europe and become the new normal in the sectors selected”. Together with the shipping materials for post and packages, disposable packaging materials for a number of other product categories were quantified. Seven products have been selected for kick-starting the transition to reusable (or none) packaging at the European level.
The deposit on small plastic bottles took off on 1 July in the Netherlands. A cheerful Dutch State Secretary Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) kicked off the new measure on the beach of Scheveningen, together with the Statiegeldalliantie, the joint initiative of more than 1.100 Dutch and Belgian stakeholders calling for a deposit system.
The 1.100 partners of the Statiegeldalliantie, including Belgian and Dutch organisations of farmers, environmentalists, and citizens are calling for the Belgian regional governments to follow the Dutch example. At an event in Antwerp, Belgium on Thursday, their call was reinforced by Chairman Joachim Coens of the governing party CD&V and chairwoman of the Greens Meyrem Almaci.
Global innovation manager Tom Domen of Ecover represented the business world that is asking for a deposit return system to enable meeting their sustainability goals, especially when it comes to recycled content in PET bottles.
The farmers’ association ABS is asking for the system in order to lower the risk of cow ingesting mall pieces of metal.
They were joined by Canal It Up, Brussels enthusiasts who clean the Brussel canal in kayaks, Ferm, the largest women’s organisation of Flanders, BBL, the Flemish environmental umbrella organisation, and Walloon citizen Régine Florent who pleaded for the 3 Belgian regions to work together. They all called the belgian decision-makers to follow the example of the Netherlands.
The Statiegeldalliantie: “The Dutch will have a nicer and cleaner environment from now on. The pollution and the municipalities’ costs will reduce sharply. Risks for animals to get harmed will decrease. So this is a big victory for all those who have fought for it and for everyone who is keen on a cleaner environment.”
Four years of intensified political debates
In 2017, Recycling Netwerk Benelux took the initiative to establish the Statiegeldalliantie together with 19 other organisations and 1 Dutch municipality. Today, more than 1,100 partners, including 98% of all Dutch municipalities, are campaigning for deposits in Belgium and the Netherlands, under the flag “Deposit for bottles and cans, Yes We Can!”.
State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) made the decisions for small bottles and cans respectively in April 2020 and in February 2021. The second phase of the deposit return system expansion, the deposit on cans, will take effect on 31 December 2022.
Four garbage trucks full of plastic bottles a day
“The positive impact on the Dutch environment will be historical,” says director Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk Benelux. “Currently, around 200 million bottles and cans end up in the Netherlands’ streets every year. 4 garbage trucks full of small plastic bottles, every day! A deposit system will reduce this number by 70 to 90 percent”. When the second phase starts and cans are included, Dutch cows will run less risk of being hurt by bits of tin.
Belgium, Yes We Can!
“The Deposit Refund Alliance has been made up of Dutch and Belgian members from the outset. Now the Dutch government has decided the deposit on plastic bottles and cans, and society is welcoming the measure with great enthusiasm, the pressure on the Belgian ministers for the environment – in Flanders Zuhal Demir (N-VA), in Brussels Alain Maron (Ecolo) and in Wallonia Céline Tellier (Ecolo) – is increasing. The litter problem is increasing rapidly in recent years, according to the most recent official counts in Belgium.
Note: We own the rights to the photos below, you are free to use them with reference to “www.statiegeldalliantie.org”.
Photo of State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) at the action yesterday 30 June on the beach of Scheveningen near The Hague
Photo credits: Robin Balou/Statiegeldalliantie
Photo of CD&V President Joachim Coens at the action Thursday 1 July in Antwerp
Photos of the events in Scheveningen (NL) and Antwerp (BE)
Coca-Cola partners with The Ocean Cleanup: Break Free From Plastic Reacts.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Brussels – June 4, 2021
The international movement of plastic-fighting NGO’s Break Free From Plastic reacts to the announcement of partnership between top plastic polluter Coca-Cola and The Ocean Cleanup: “If Coca-Cola really wants to solve their plastic bottle pollution, the company should support the introduction of Deposit Refund Systems worldwide and urgently reduce their plastic use as much as possible. The Ocean Cleanup is only an end-of-pipe intervention that will not stop the worldwide plastic pollution crisis which Coca-Cola is co-responsible for”, Corporate Campaigns Coordinator Emma Priestland says.
In a video on Twitter, Boyan Slat of Dutch company The Ocean Cleanup announced that Coca-Cola will be a so-called ‘implementation partner’ of their River Project. Over the next eighteen months they plan to roll out fifteen ‘interceptors’ in rivers worldwide. In the video, Slat mentioned that this cooperation was one of the hardest decisions he ever had to take.
Coca-Cola is the biggest plastic polluter worldwide
For three years in a row, Coca-Cola has been listed as the biggest plastic polluter worldwide in the Brand Audits, a series of monitoring reports conducted by Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) based on hundreds of cleanups in over 50 countries and 6 continents.
“For years, we have been asking Coca-Cola to tackle their pollution at the source instead of at the end of the pipe. There is no need for cleanups if plastic bottles never reach the rivers or oceans. Deposit refund systems (DRS) achieve exactly that: they reduce the number of plastic bottles in nature by 70 to 90 percent according to a study commissioned by the Dutch authorities. It is time that Coca-Cola stops fighting deposit refund systems and starts implementing them,” says Rob Buurman, director of Dutch-Belgian environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux.
A deposit refund scheme for plastic bottles
A deposit refund scheme is a system in which consumers pay a small deposit for beverage containers, which is refunded upon return to a shop. Such schemes are crucial to boost refillable bottles and are already up and running in 40 countries in the world, where collection and recycling rates of beverage containers are often above 90%. Coca-Cola has been fighting the introduction of DRS and other progressive legislation for decades, while promoting voluntary targets and false solutions, such as clean-ups.
While Coca-Cola claims to be committed to a ‘World Without Waste’, an independent investigation by the Changing Markets Foundation found that the company has also continuously broken, delayed or shifted the goalposts on most of its impressive-sounding voluntary targets for the last 30 years. In 1990, for example, the company committed to having 25% recycled content in their bottles, but 30 years later they are only at 10%.
“Prevention is better than cure. We will not settle for projects that are only intended to create a better image for multinationals. We want real solutions that prevent Coca-Cola’s bottles, cans and pouches ending up in the rivers, seas and oceans in the first place. Therefore, we demand Coca-Cola to fully support the introduction of deposit refund systems for their beverage containers and urge them to make a decisive shift to refillables, in every country in the world”, Break Free From Plastic concludes.
About Break Free From Plastic
Break Free From Plastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 11,000 organizations and individual supporters from across the world have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and to push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the common values of environmental protection and social justice, and work together through a holistic approach in order to bring about systemic change under the #breakfreefromplastic core pillars. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions.
The Dutch government has decided today that the Dutch deposit system will be expanded to beverage cans, coming into effect on December 31, 2022.
“The deposit return system will reduce the number of cans in litter with 70 to 90 percent. This is a major victory for the environment”, the six environmental organizations Recycling Netwerk, Stichting De Noordzee, Plastic Soup Foundation, Plastic Soup Surfer, Greenpeace and Natuur & Milieu state in a joint press release.
The dutch deposit return system currently only applies for large plastic bottles and most glass beer bottles. For decades, a small group of members of the Dutch beverage and food industry has prevented a deposit return system on small plastic bottles and cans in the Netherlands.
The outrage about plastic pollution and the sense of urgency to tackle litter has grown in recent years. The environmental movement and society at large, represented in the Statiegeldalliantie (Dutch-Belgian Alliance for a deposit return system) increased the pressure. A study commissioned by the Dutch government concluded that deposit return systems reduce the presence of cans and bottles in the litter by 70 to 90 percent,.
The State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management Stientje van Veldhoven (political party D66) presented the companies involved with an ultimatum: they either reduced the amount of beverage packaging as found in litter by 70%, or the government would expand the deposit return scheme. Initially, the agreement only applied to the small plastic bottles. The number of small plastic bottles in litter did not decrease, but increased in 2019. That is why the Dutch cabinet decided in April 2020 to put a deposit on the small plastic bottles, which will go into effect on1 July this year, in five months.
After parliamentary motions of MPs Jan Paternotte (political party D66) and Carla Dik-Faber (political party ChristenUnie) in October 2019, the government in April 2020 decided to set up a similar trajectory for cans, with a deadline for industry in the second half of 2021. When the government’s monitoring data over the first half of 2020 showed no decrease, but an increase of 19 percent in the number of cans in the environment, we asked the cabinet in a joint response to the public consultation to decide to advance the decision, and take it before the elections in March 2021. The cabinet has granted this request today.
The deposit return system for bottles and cans must now be designed in a consumer-friendly way. The vast majority of empty beverage packagings with a deposit are returned to the supermarket. It is therefore important that this sector will cooperate in order to enable consumers to return their empty cans to the supermarket. Horeca and small companies have been officially excluded from any take-back obligation by the government.
It is yet to be seen whether cans containing juices and dairy are excluded from the deposit bill, as is the case for plastic bottles. The environmental organizations point out that it would be better if these packagings would also come with a deposit. The same goes for the pouches, of which large numbers also end up in litter. The German government decided on January 20 this year to also include all beverage containers with juice, wine and dairy in the deposit return system.
Austrian energy drink company Red Bull causes massive environmental pollution, also internationally. Environmental NGOs Global 2000 (Austria), Retorna (Spain) and Recycling Netwerk (Belgium and the Netherlands) draw attention to the international litter problem caused by Red Bull. The three NGOs demand that the company supports deposit return systems in all European countries.
In Austria (23%) and The Netherlands (20.9%) the Red Bull brand is the most frequently found beverage container. The globally used Litterati app confirms this: with 25% Red Bull is the most common brand found on World Clean Up Day on September 19, 2020, ahead of Marlboro, Coca Cola and McDonalds.
Recycling Netwerk Benelux therefore supports Global 2000’s action at the Red Bull headquarters. “In our country, Red Bull is also the champion of can pollution. For 5 years in a row, Red Bull is the most littered beverage brand, and its share of Dutch litter increases every year, up to 20,9% in 2020”, Director Rob Buurman says. “Red Bull exports its waste to other countries. Therefore we strongly encourage Global 2000 in addressing this problem at the Red Bull headquarters. Red Bull should support deposit return systems in all countries where it sells cans”.
Miquel Roset, director of Retorna in Madrid, Spain, states: “Red Bull supports all kinds of outdoor sportive activities and always looks for impossible challenges. Well, the most crucial challenge nowadays is protecting our health and our environment and Red Bull can lead the way by supporting deposit and returns systems in its home country and the rest of Europe. We want to have the right of taking back bottles and cans to the shops in order to prevent the pollution caused by the littering of beverage containers. For instance, in Spain it is very common to find Red Bull cans littered in parks, roads and beaches, especially during the weekends”.
Virgin aluminium cans have a large ecological footprint
Next to tackling litter, a deposit return scheme also enables recycling of the aluminium cans. New, or virgin aluminium has a large ecological footprint. Aluminium is made from the raw material bauxite and this is mainly extracted in Australia, Guinea, China and Brazil. “This process is extremely polluting as it consumes vast amounts of energy, rainforests are being cleared and per ton aluminium up to 1.5 tons of poisonous red mud is produced, which contaminates groundwater and soil. When the raw material for the Red Bull cans will finally be in Vorarlberg or Switzerland arrives, it has already come a long way”, emphasizes Lena Steger, Resource Spokeswoman for GLOBAL 2000. “According to our calculations, Red Bull uses at least 68 million kilograms of new, virgin aluminum every year for can production. That corresponds to the weight of 420 jumbo jets.”
The difference between virgin aluminium and recycled aluminium
Using recycled aluminium instead of new, virgin aluminium in cans takes the highly polluting extraction process of bauxite out of the equation, as the material will be used again instead of being extracted for new cans. The use of recycled aluminium saves 95% of energy compared to the use of new aluminium. On their website, Red Bull boasts this fact, however, neither Red Bull nor Ball Corporation (the producer of the cans) give any information on whether recycled material is actually used in the Red Bull cans. An inquiry by GLOBAL 2000 also remained unanswered. It seems very likely that all Red Bull cans are made from virgin aluminium.
A deposit return system is needed to collect all the cans in order to make cans from recycled aluminium. At the EU level, the two major beverage manufacturers’ associations, the European Federation of Bottled Waters (EFBW) and UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, already publicly expressed their support for national deposit return systems in all EU member states in a position paper three weeks ago. UNESDA represents the largest soft drink manufacturers in Europe, including Red Bull.
Red Bull should commit itself to change to reuse systems wherever possible and the remaining cans should be made from recycled aluminium. GLOBAL2000, Recycling Netwerk Benelux and Retorna therefore demand: “Red Bull, give Austria and the world wiiings and support a deposit return system and reusable alternatives.”
Recycling Netwerk Benelux congratulates the Netherlands’ State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management Stientje van Veldhoven (D66) with the progress made last Friday when she published the draft legislation for the introduction of a deposit on cans. Recycling Netwerk calls on the Dutch government and the House of Representatives to complete the entire procedure before the elections in March 2021.
The latest monitoring report on the amount of cans found in litter by the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management leaves very little doubt that a deposit will also be issued on beverage cans. The report shows that in the first half of 2020, 19% more cans were found in nature as compared to the reference period in 2016/2017.
“It is an utopian dream to believe that the companies involved could still reverse this upward trend and actually achieve the 70 to 90 percent decline as requested by the government. We ask the government to advance its final decision, so that it will be taken within this government’s term of office,” says Recycling Netwerk director Rob Buurman.
Precedent
There is indeed a precedent for moving the final decision forward. In the autumn of 2019, it turned out that the number of plastic bottles in the environment did not decrease as promised by the industry – but increased instead. Therefore, State Secretary Stientje van Veldhoven advanced the decision moment concerning the introduction of a deposit return system (DRS) on plastic bottles to spring 2020. Consequently, in April 2020 the government decided to introduce the deposit on plastic bottles, which will take effect on 1 July 2021.
A significant and growing part of the business community also desires a rapid decision on the cans in order to gain clarity on the investments necessary on their part.
The political will to introduce a deposit on cans has increased sharply over the recent years. The draft legislation the government approved last Friday results from two political resolutions, tabled by MPs Paternotte and others and Dik-Faber and others and adopted by the House of Parliament in October 2019.
Recommendations
We do add two comments to the text of the draft decision. First of all, we advise the government to immediately include drink pouches in the deposit legislation, because they very often end up in the litter as well.
Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the 90% separate collection target, which is legally prescribed by the draft decree, will be achieved with a deposit amount of € 0.15 per can. Research by CE Delft shows that with a deposit amount of € 0.15 per can, one can expect a return percentage of approximately 88%. We therefore advise the government to set a minimum amount that guarantees the 90% separate collection target.
Decision for a deposit on plastic bottles is already a success
Although the deposit on small plastic bottles will only take effect on 1 July 2021, this government decision has already proven to be a success. Less than five months after this political decision, Coca-Cola Netherlands already stated that their Dutch bottles will soon be made entirely of recycled plastics (100% rPET). The Netherlands is the second country worldwide, after Norway, where the multinational beverage producer is taking this step. Coca-Cola explicitly said to have been motivated to do so by the deposit decision by government Rutte III. This drew the attention of Forbes and the Financial Times, among others media.
Dutch businesses also ask for a deposit on cans
A rapid introduction of a deposit on cans will allow more cans to be recycled, which is a step towards making this type of packaging more sustainable. “Recycling Aluminum Verpakkingen Nederland, a federation of businesses using aluminium packaging, called publicly for the deposit on cans to go into effect earlier than 2022. And bottled water producer Spadel Nederland has also been asking the government to decide for a deposit on cans.
On top of that, one can read in the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft legislation, that the income for the industry is higher than the costs they bear when introducing a deposit on cans. This leaves the industry without any reason to put off the decision any longer.
Furthermore, litter disposal costs for municipalities are expected to drop sharply, by up to 50 million euros. An additional 1.5 to 6 million euros is saved on emptying waste bins. The government also expects a CO2 emission reduction of 23 Kton thanks to a deposit on cans.
“The sooner a deposit will be implemented, the better. We call on the government and the House of Representatives to make a final decision to introduce a deposit on cans during this term of office. We ask the Dutch business community to support politicians in this”, environmental organization Recycling Netwerk concludes.
“Norway has achieved great success with this method. This is a very good way of tackling pollution caused by plastic and cans”, environmental organization Recycling Netwerk Benelux says in response to the coalition agreement.
The Belgian federal coalition agreement stipulates: “It will be investigated in consultation with the regions and the sector whether the incorporation of a deposit scheme in the packaging tax is desirable”.
“The Belgian federal coalition agreement is perfectly in line with the deposit plans that the regional Walloon (p29)and Brussels (p64) governments included in their respective coalition agreements last year. It is the only way in which Belgium will be able to meet the requirements of the European directive on disposable plastics. Belgians will experience a noticeable improvement of their living environment, as a deposit return system reduces the number of cans and bottles in nature by 70 to 90 percent,” says Recycling Netwerk.
The European Single Use Plastic Directive 2019/904 (SUP Directive) stipulates that all plastic bottles must contain at least 25% recycled plastic (rPET) by 2025. This deadline coincides with the end of the Belgian federal legislature. Secondly, member States are obliged to collect 90% of plastic bottles separately by 2029. It is common knowledge that this can only be achieved by introducing a deposit on the beverage packaging. European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, who is responsible for the SUP Directive, therefore advises European member states to introduce a deposit return system.
With a deposit return system, Norway collects separately about 90 percent of plastic bottles and cans. The example of Lithuania shows that a deposit return system can achieve high collection rates very quickly. Lithuania introduced a deposit return system in February 2016. Within 1 year, the collection rate increased from 74.3% at the end of 2016 to 91.9% at the end of 2017. It is because of these figures and the European 90% separated collection target that a series of European countries have already decided to introduce deposit return systems.
With a deposit return system, the collected plastic is much cleaner. With such pure material, companies are able to make new PET bottles from old PET bottles. Coca-Cola Netherlands said earlier this month that they will start producing such 100% rPET bottles in the Netherlands – which they are able to do because the Dutch government already decided in April to put a deposit on all plastic bottles. With a deposit return system, Belgian companies will also be able to switch to PET bottles made from 100% recycled material, collected in Belgium.
“We therefore encourage the Belgian federal government to quickly and ambitiously work out the bills transposing the European directive and incorporating the deposit scheme into the packaging tax. In doing so, Belgium will catch up with the trend of the European member states that use deposits to tackle plastic pollution and litter”, environmental organization Recycling Netwerk Benelux concludes.
Finally, Recycling Netwerk Benelux would like to thank all people, volunteers, litter pickers, local administrators, members of parliament, staff members, experts and policy makers, who actively voice their support for a deposit return system – and in particular all 1,086 partners of the Deposit Alliance (Statiegeldalliantie) who have been advocating since 2017 for the introduction of a deposit return system on cans and all plastic bottles in the Netherlands and Belgium.
They do so through an opinion published on the Euractiv website today. “This is a historic breakthrough in the debate on deposit return systems,” environmental organization Recycling Netwerk Benelux says with delight.
“NMWE and UNESDA believe that well-designed Deposit Return Schemes (DRS) could hold the key – and a growing number of EU member states are coming to the same conclusion and considering their introduction. Coca-Cola European Partners SVP Public Affairs and Government Relations, Hans van Bochove, also agrees that “Well designed DRS would enable the EU to reach its collection targets for beverage bottles faster – and would also secure the food-grade quality rPET that our beverage industries need. In delivering closed loop recycling, DRS would also reduce the quantity of virgin materials needed – thereby lowering the EU’s CO2 footprint and contributing towards its climate objectives.”, says the open letter from NMWE and UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe.
NMWE (previously EFBW) represents more than 500 European bottled water producers. UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe represents soft drink producers operating in Europe, including Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Danone, Nestlé Waters and Red Bull.
“This is a historic breakthrough”, Recycling Netwerk Benelux reacts. “Five years ago, all beverage producers were still traditionally opposing a deposit on plastic bottles. As a result, some European governments have shown reluctance to implement this environmental measure. Now that the companies involved are themselves calling for a deposit return system, there is no longer any reason to hesitate. A deposit return system reduces the number of plastic bottles in the environment by 70 to 90 percent. For the governments of countries such as France, Spain and Belgium, this has to be the starting signal to finally lay down national legislation on DRS,” says the environmental organization.
“We have always explained that the European target of 90% separate collection for plastic bottles, as set out in the Single Use Plastic Directive, can only be achieved by means of deposit return systems. And today the beverage producers themselves also publicly state that they need DRS to live up to the European legal obligations. That really is a game changer. ”
Eight European countries have had a deposit return system for plastic bottles and cans for many years. In the past four years, another ten European governments took the decision to introduce or expand their national deposit return schemes. Two days ago, Recycling Netwerk Benelux published the analysis that beverage producers are becoming increasingly positive towards DRS. “But with this statement, they made it absolutely clear to national governments that they fully support deposit return systems for plastic bottles”, the environmental organization concludes.
This report analyses the causes and possible consequences of the recent price evolutions in the oil and plastics sector, the problems for the plastic recycling industry, and possible solutions.
1. Causes of the historically low oil prices
“US oil price below zero for first time in history”, the Financial Times wrote on 21 April 2020. The evaporation of demand caused by the coronavirus pandemic left the world awash with oil and not enough storage capacity — meaning producers are paying buyers to take it off their hands.
The causes are multiple and both geo-political and economic: the US shale gas boom, the economic slowdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Saudi-Russian oil price war.
Some changes in prices are part of normal market developments. But what is happening now can be called a perfect storm. There is an extreme mismatch in supply and demand of fossil feedstocks. Global demand for fossil feedstocks dropped suddenly and dramatically. At the same time, the ongoing production of shale gas and the sudden price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia created an excess supply of discounted oil.
1.1. The US shale gas boom
The shale gas production in the United States rose fenomally in the last ten years, from 1.3 billion cubic feet in 2007 to 22 billion cubic feet in 2018. Because of this boom, the United States surpassed both Russia and Saudi-Arabia and became the biggest producer of liquid fossil fuels in the world. Oil prices crashed from above $114 per barrel in 2014 to about $27 in 2016. This was called the 2010s oil glut.
In May 2017, President Trump promised “complete” independence from foreign sources of oil, thereby putting additional emphasis on the strategy to develop shale gas exploration, something that was already well underway during the Obama administration.
The overall energy demand plummeted and the expectation is that the energy demand of 2020 will be about 6% lower than in 2019. As a result, the oil prices took a big fall. The Covid-19 demand shock represented a bigger contraction than that experienced during the Great Recession during the late 2000s and early 2010s.
1.3. The Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war of 2020
Since 2016, Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to cooperate in managing the price of oil. The informal alliance of the OPEC together with Russia was dubbed OPEC+ . By January 2020, they had cut oil production by 2.1 million barrels per day. With these measures they kept the oil price at a certain level.
But as the Covid-19 pandemic pushed demand for oil below forecasts, oil prices fell with 20% in the first two months of 2020. Tensions rose between the OPEC+ members. At a 6 March 2020 OPEC meeting in Vienna, they were unable to agree on reducing oil production in response to the global Covid-19 pandemic. The break-up in dialogue between OPEC and Russia triggered the oil price war on 8 March 2020. Later on the same day, oil prices had decreased by 30%, representing the largest one-time drop since the 1991 Gulf War. Oil traded at about $30 a barrel.
This economic conflict reinforced the sheer drop of oil price, with the price of US oil becoming negative on 20 April. Oil production can not be stopped completely, but even the lowest possible production level generates much greater supply than demand. As a result, the oil industry had nowhere to store the abundant oil. Instead of being an asset, it became a liability and the oil industry was ready to pay for it being taken away.
2. Effects on the plastics market
Oil and natural gas are the most important feedstocks of plastics. Therefore there is a direct link between the price of oil and the price of so-called virgin plastic.
Following the price drops in fossil feedstocks, the price of virgin plastic is hitting new lows as well in 2020. This makes it hard for recycled plastics to compete with the cheap virgin plastics.
2.1. The shale gas boom spurs huge investments in virgin plastics
Ethane and propane are two types of hydrocarbons that are important components of shale gas. Methane, the main component of shale gas, is burned for the production of energy, but ethane and propane can be used to make ethylene and propylene, the most important building blocks for making plastics.
Because of the increase in the production of shale gas in the US, the production of ethane climbed from 2014, and soared since 2018.
Because there was lots of cheap ethane and propane available from the shale gas industry, the petrochemical industry invested enormous amounts in the construction of new facilities to produce new, virgin plastic that would drive prices of plastics further down.
We revealed in The Guardian of 21 January 2019 that 22 of the 28 chemical producers who founded the cynically named “Alliance to end plastic waste (AEPW)”, were actually investing billions of dollars in factories to produce even more virgin plastics. The president of the AEPW, Jacob Duer, had to admit this. He “accepts the observation as valid”, Ethical Corporation reported.
A big share of these virgin plastics are for consumer goods, such as plastic bottles and other single use plastic products. A rise in plastic production contributes to plastic pollution.
Among the investors in new plastics production facilities are major companies like BASF, ExxonMobil, Dow and Shell. For example, Royal Dutch Shell, the Dutch-British oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands, opened a giant new facility south of Pittsburgh last year, which will produce more than a million tons of plastic a year. “When completed, the facility will be fed by pipelines stretching hundreds of miles across Appalachia. It will have its own rail system with 3,300 freight cars. And it will produce more than a million tons each year of something that many people argue the world needs less of: plastic”, the New York Times wrote.
In the Port of Antwerp, INEOS is planning a 3 billion euro investment. Big ships are supposed to transport the ethane and propane to the Port of Antwerp. It has been hailed as the biggest chemical investment in Europe in 20 years.
Following the economic law of supply and demand, this huge boost of virgin plastic production leads to extra supply on the market, and further pushes down the price of virgin plastics.
2.2. Plastic demand and prices drop
So we see that the interaction of cheap ethane and propane out of shale gas production, and investments in new plastic production factories, all lead to a lock-in situation with one major consequence: always more, and cheaper, virgin plastics flowing into the international markets.
This long-term evolution to cheaper virgin plastics is the undercurrent. The lower demand due to the coronacrisis, and the price war add up to that, all together lead to historically low prices of virgin plastic.
2.2.1. Fall in consumption of of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP)
LyondellBasell Industries predicted a 15 per cent fall in consumption of two of the most common types of plastic, polyethylene and polypropylene, as people buy fewer automobiles and household appliances because of the pandemic. “A drop of this magnitude would signal a rare retreat by a substance that has proliferated with rising living standards around the world, but which is linked to environmental blight from discarded throwaway products”, the Financial Times writes.
For recycled plastics that are used in for example the automotive industry, the drop in demand has been significant, while there is no legislative framework that ensures producers will not switch to virgin plastics.
2.2.2. Inversion of the price difference between recycled and virgin PET
Recycled PET has always been cheaper than virgin PET. The increase in shale gas extraction has reversed the price difference, S&P Global Platts reported in September 2019.
And while shale gas already drove the price of virgin PET down, the effect only became stronger the last couple of months and leaves recycled PET of food grade quality now often costing hundreds of euro per tonne more than virgin PET.
It should be noted that PET might be one of the commodities for which recyclers might still be able to find demand. PET is mostly used for packaging, among which plastic bottles, and the demand for packaging hasn’t dropped due to the pandemic. Besides, in Europe, the Directive 2019/904 obliges producers of plastic bottles to use 25% recycled content by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Drinks producers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi are committing to use more recycled material.
For other recycled plastics such as polypropylene, the situation is more problematic. For example, Dutch recyclers export recycled plastics to Germany to be used in production of bumpers and dashboards of cars, but demand has dropped dramatically.
3. Recycling industry warns for shutdown
Plastics Recyclers Europe (PRE), an organization representing European plastics recyclers, has warned that much of its industry is forced to close production due to market developments caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
According to PRE, the main drivers behind this slump are the lack of demand (because production of cars, aircraft and electronics have dropped), and record low prices of virgin plastics, as well as decreased activity globally.
Ton Emans, PRE president, commented: “If the situation is to persist and no actions are taken to remedy the sector, plastics recycling will cease to be profitable, hampering the attainment of the EU recycling targets and putting in jeopardy the transition towards circular plastics. In such a case, recyclable plastic waste will have no alternative but to be sent to landfill or incineration.”
The NRK, which represents the interests of around 400 companies from the Dutch rubber and plastic industry, also warned that these companies tend to opt for cheaper virgin raw materials instead of circular recyclate due to the extremely low prices of virgin raw materials and because they have been hit hard in their turnover due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
4. Solutions to the plastic recycling crisis
While it is hard for European governments to make a direct impact on the low oil price, they are still able to take measures to soften its ramifications on the European recycling sector. Action is needed to prevent the collapse of the European recycling industry, which would lead to even more dominance of virgin plastics, and the gigantic plastic pollution that comes with it. The European Union clearly committed itself to solve the plastic pollution.
We identify 5 policy measures the European Commission and European governments can introduce to solve the crisis of the plastic recycling sector. These policy measures are simultaneously beneficial for the environment.
A tax on virgin plastics
A tax on virgin plastics should be high enough to make recycled plastics competitive and thus attractive for companies to use in new products. The European Commission already sees a plastic tax as an option for financing the European Green Deal, but it is important that the tax on virgin plastics is sufficiently high so that it has a real impact on the plastic markets.
Require a minimum of recycled content
In the Netherlands, new plastic products contain less than 10 percent recycled plastic and it is unlikely other countries perform much better. By requiring minimum amounts of recycled plastic in new products, companies will have to use more plastic from processed waste. This will increase the demand for recyclate, and reduce demand for virgin plastic made from oil.
Moreover, because producers will need the waste of their own products, they will adapt the design process so that the waste can be properly collected and used later. Dutch State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management Stientje van Veldhoven declared that she strongly supports a minimum recycled content requirement at the European level.
Limit the number of types of plastics allowed on the market
Different polymers with different additives for different applications lead to hundreds of combinations – which are often collected collectively. On top of that, products often consist of different types of polymers, again making high quality recycling very difficult.
Producers have far too much freedom of choice. Choices have to be made for certain types of plastics for specific applications, with a limited choice of additives and a strong preference for products made from one type of plastic.
Phase out disposable plastics where possible
Reverse the burden of proof: for example, let supermarkets prove that plastic packaging around fruit and vegetables is absolutely necessary to transport and sell them. Identify product systems that can and should make a full switch to reusable alternatives, such as coffee cups or plastic plant trays. Make it so that the use of disposable plastic will no longer be the standard; its use will have to be legitimized. The French law for the circular economy aims to phase out all disposable plastic by 2040.
Ban the export of plastic waste to countries outside Europe
Europe is still exporting plastic waste because it is cheaper to process or dump it elsewhere than to properly recycle it within the EU. Since the Chinese import ban, a lot of European waste ends up in landfills, for example, in Turkey. By deciding that Europe will have to process its waste itself, we stimulate the European recycling sector and avoid plastic leakage to countries that have less effective waste systems – and thus leakage of plastic waste into the environment.
In conclusion, the European Member States and the European Union have relatively little control over the oil price or the market price of virgin plastics. However, with this package of 5 policy measures, they can prevent the European recycling sector from collapsing. These measures lead to greater security for recycling companies and thus to job retention. A good legal framework is the best conceivable support package for the recycling industry.
These measures also serve the environment. If the cheap virgin plastic wrecks the plastic recycling, Europe will be unable to win the fight against plastic pollution from throwaway plastic. We are happy to make our knowledge available for an environmental move forward and call on companies that use plastics, the recycling sector and retail to endorse these measures.
This entails a huge expansion of the current deposit return system in the Netherlands. “After decades of resistance by industry, this government’s decision is excellent news in the fight against plastic pollution”, director Rob Buurman of environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux reacts.
Currently, only plastic bottles larger than 1 liter have a deposit in the Netherlands. On the 1st of July 2021, small bottles under 1 liter will come with a deposit amount of minimum 0.15 euro. Each year, 1 billion small plastic bottles are sold in the Netherlands. Between 50 and 100 million of them end up in litter. The Dutch authorities are also preparing legislation for deposits on beverage cans.
In 2017, Recycling Netwerk Benelux co- founded the Statiegeldalliantie (Deposit Return System Alliance) in order to give a voice to Dutch and Belgian proponents of a deposit return system (DRS) on all plastic bottles and cans. The alliance grew very rapidly and today counts 1055 Dutch and Belgian consumer organisations, farmer organisations, municipalities, and a wide variety of organisations and companies.
In the process, the Dutch authorities commissioned a study on the economic and environmental benefits of DRS. The results were very convincing. In every scenario the estimated net benefits for businesses (31 – 121 million euro) outweigh the costs (10 – 110 million euro). They would also save between 5.5 and 8 million euro on alternative collection systems. And additionally, municipalities could save between 83 and 90 million euro on the costs of cleaning up plastic bottles and cans and emptying public garbage bins. DRS is expected to reduce the amount of these beverage containers in the environment with 70-90% and significantly increase recycling rates of plastic bottles and cans.
Over the years, Dutch supermarkets and beverage producers have made promises over and over again to reduce plastic bottles and cans in litter and have failed to do so every time. The government gave industry, which was still heavily lobbying against DRS, one last chance to reduce the number of plastic bottles in the environment with at least 70% between 2017 and 2019. In these two years, however, the amount of plastic bottles in litter actually increased with 7% and the cans increased with 16%, according to the official monitoring results.
Importantly, the European Directive on Single-Use Plastics demands that Member States achieve a 90% separate collection of plastic bottles by the end of the decade. The Netherlands has advanced its national deadline and is determined to reach this 90% separate collection target already in 2022 by means of DRS.
“By implementing a deposit on small plastic bottles, the Netherlands takes a big step. The Dutch government shows that this is no time to delay or abandon our environmental ambitions. Even in difficult times it’s possible to make good policy decisions that will benefit the economy, society and the environment, rather than bowing to industry attempts to use the pandemic as an excuse for backsliding on popular initiatives”, director Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk Benelux says.
The environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux filed a complaint in September 2017. The Dutch Public Prosecution Department investigated this and then brought a case before the Court of Justice in September 2019 for failure to protect the environment from damage by the dispersion of crumb rubber infill. The case focuses on Sportaal, the caretaker of the sports fields of the Dutch municipality Enschede.
“Today’s court ruling is very good news for the environment. For years, millions of old car tyres have been shredded into rubber crumbs and subsequently they have been dumped on sports fields. We hope this ruling will help to quickly phase out the use of this polluting substance on sports fields. It must be possible for people to sport on artificial turf fields, without worries for their health and without pollution of the environment”, Dutch-Belgian environmental organisation Recycling Netwerk Benelux reacts to the verdict.
History of the case
The charges environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux filed in 2017 concern environmental offences due to the leaching of zinc, cobalt and mineral oils into the environment, coming from the use of crumb rubber infill on artificial turf fields. The charge was directed to the entire value chain, ranging from producers who process end-of-life tyres to crumb rubber infill, to constructors and caretakers of sports accommodations, as well as sports clubs who implement it.
The public prosecutor commenced by suing Sportaal, the caretaker of sports accommodations in Enschede, a municipality with a population of 158,000 residents in the east of the Netherlands. The prosecutor has stated in his formal plea that this case is just the start and that “more cases will follow”. There are nearly 2000 artificial turf fields in the Netherlands currently filled with crumb rubber. On average, each field contains the crumb rubber of 20,000 tyres.
Soil pollution
Under Dutch law, it is prohibited to pollute the soil. This is stated in the Soil Protection Law (Wet Bodembescherming). Article 13 dictates to take all measures necessary to prevent pollution of the soil – also in case there is suspicion pollution can occur. The law contains a duty of care, which obligates relevant actors to prevent pollution of the soil, and to remediate the effects of pollution whenever pollution of the soil has occurred.
In spite of several documents developed over the years by industry stakeholders to implement the duty of care, in practice, the crumb rubber infill disperses into the environment. It contaminates the soil with heavy metals, mineral oil and other chemicals of concern. Furthermore, the rubber crumbs break down into microplastics.
The official Dutch Institute for Health and the Environment (RIVM) published its report The environmental impact of rubber infill near artificial turf fields in July 2018. RIVM concludes in the report that zinc, cobalt and mineral oil leach from the rubber granules, and can create negative environmental impacts on the soil around and in the sublayers of the artificial turf field. The report concluded that in 9 of the 10 fields examined, environmental criteria were exceeded.
This court case can have far-reaching consequences for the nearly 2000 artificial turf fields in the Netherlands currently filled with crumb rubber. Furthermore, the Dutch court ruling can inspire similar cases in countries confronted with crumb rubber infill on sports fields, such as Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark.
Since there are ample alternatives at hand to implement, such as cork infill, hybrid or non-infill artificial turf fields, Recycling Netwerk hopes municipalities and caretaking organizations will take account for the total cost of ownership and consider the environmental effects when selecting materials for future sports accommodations.
More info
The hearing took place on 10 December 2019 and was summarized in this article on the website of the Dutch Public Prosecution Department
In September 2017, environmental NGO Recycling Netwerk Benelux filed charges with the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the use of crumb rubber infill on artificial turf fields. The charges concern environmental offences due to the leaching of zinc, cobalt and mineral oils from the crumb rubber into the environment.
The charge was directed to the entire value chain, ranging from producers who process end-of-life tyres to crumb rubber infill, to constructors and caretakers of sports accommodations, as well as sports clubs who implement it. The prosecutor now sues Sportaal, the caretaker of sports accommodations in the municipality of Enschede.
Soil pollution
Under Dutch law, it is prohibited to pollute the soil. This is stated in the Wet Bodembescherming (Soil Protection Law). Article 13 dictates to take all measures necessary to prevent pollution of the soil. The law contains a duty of care, which obligates relevant actors to prevent pollution of the soil, and to remediate the effects of pollution whenever pollution of the soil has occurred.
In spite of several documents developed over the years by industry stakeholders to implement the duty of care, in practice, the crumb rubber infill disperses into the environment. It contaminates the soil with heavy metals, mineral oil and other chemicals of concern. Furthermore, the rubber crumbs break down into microplastics. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is currently assessing crumb rubber infill in the preparation for the restriction dossier on microplastics under REACH.
The official Dutch Institute for Health and the Environment (RIVM) published its report The environmental impact of rubber infill near artificial turf fields in July 2018. RIVM concludes in the report that zinc, cobalt and mineral oil leach from the rubber granules, and can create negative environmental impact on the soil around and in the sublayers of the synthetic turf field.
Consequences
This court case can have far-reaching consequences for the nearly 2000 artificial turf fields in the Netherlands currently filled with crumb rubber.
Since there are ample alternatives at hand to implement, such as cork infill, hybrid or non-infill artificial turf fields, Recycling Netwerk hopes municipalities and caretaking organizations will take account for the total cost of ownership and consider the environmental effects when selecting materials for their sports accommodations.
The first hearing was to take place before the Meervoudig Economische Strafkamer (Economic Criminal Chamber) on the 19th of September, but was rescheduled due to illness of the counsellor who represents Sportaal.
Zembla, OM start eerste rechtszaak tegen beheerder van kunstgrasvelden, 20 september 2019
Belgium will likely have to change its waste policy in order to reach the new EU 90% separate collection target for plastic bottles. This year, Europe adopted the directive that obliges member states to separately collect 90% of plastic bottles from 2029. This target is part of the European directive on single-use plastics. Nine European member states are ready to attain this target, thanks to their existing national deposit-return systems. The other 18 member states will have to change their waste collection system.
Blue bags
Some Belgian companies, mostly in the retail sector, still are reluctant to introduce a deposit-return system on plastic bottles. They claim that the actual rate of plastic recycling is good enough.
But the RTBF documentary reveals that in reality, the plastics recycling is significantly lower than what they want people to believe.
What’s does the actual belgian system look like? At home, the Belgians throw their plastic bottles, cans and cardboard packaging in “blue bags”. The system of the blue bag is controlled by Fost Plus and these bags are collected on a regular basis.
Out of home, most plastic bottles are collected with public waste bins. In some locations, such as train stations or in offices, there are also dedicated waste bins for plastic bottles and other separately collected waste.
At the sorting centre
The journalists of the RTBF followed the trail of these blue bags. The RTBF-documentary reveals that the plastic content is not recycled in Belgium, but abroad, in Germany, the Netherlands and France, more than 350 kilometers away from the Belgian sorting centre.
The manager of the French recycling centre admits that only 68% of the PET he receives after sorting is actually recycled. The rest is incinerated. And then we are only talking about the losses of the PET-stream that has already been sorted, and not about the sorting losses when the PET is being separated from other waste streams. According to the RTBF this means that, while Fost Plus claims a 42% recycling rate of plastic, in reality it is rather only 29%. The real recycling rate is therefore less than one third of all plastics put on the market in Belgium. The remaining plastics are burned, dumped or end up in litter.
This confirms earlier fact checks, done by Recover, a cooperation between local municipalities and waste intercommunal organisations, and Recycling Netwerk (NGO). These organisations also concluded that the Fost Plus figures are exaggerated. According to Recover, only half of the plastic bottles are being recycled in Belgium. Recycling Netwerk estimated that maximum 61-67% of the plastic bottles are being recycled. The numbers of Fost Plus are incorrect because they weigh the plastic bales after sorting, while they still contain a lot packagings from abroad, wrongly sorted packagings, packagings from freeriders, liquids and dirt. And it all gets added to the recycling rate of Belgian packagings, leading to significant overestimations.
90% separate collection
The new EU 90% separate collection target for plastic bottles is not exactly the same as a recycling target. Right now, the European Commission is also working on guidelines on how to measure the 90%-target. But in any case: it seems unlikely that the new rules can be interpreted and bent in such a way, that a 90% separate collection rate in the statistics, will ever be achieved.
For decades, the industry has promoted the Belgian system as an “example” for waste collecting in Europa and the world. But the world is moving forward and the Belgian system is no longer seen as a best in class-example. After decades of tweaking and improving, the Belgian system still falls short significantly. There really is no reason to think it is able to leapfrog to 90% separate collection of plastic bottles, now that so many people consume plastic bottles out of home. Separation at home with the blue bag, simply offers no real solution.
Deposit-return systems
Only the countries with a deposit-return system are ready to attain the European 90% target: Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, and Sweden. Lithuania even proved within 2 years after the introduction of the system that it could exceed the target with a separate collection rate of 91.9%.
The Netherlands are currently planning to expand the deposit return scheme on plastic bottles larger than 1 liter, to all plastic bottles. The UK government and the French government are making legislation to introduce deposit-return. The French proposal has the support of the beverage companies, the supermarkets and the French public opinion. Slovakia voted its law on deposit-return in September.
In Belgium, the Brussels region announced a deposit-return systems in its coalition agreement and Wallonia stated it will defend the introduction of the system. Meanwhile, more than a thousand cities, companies and NGOs have joined forces in the Statiegeldalliantie (Deposit Return Alliance) to ask the Dutch and Belgian governments to introduce deposit return on all plastic bottles and cans in the Netherlands and Belgium.
