Deposit Refund Systems in the EU

Deposit Refund

Systems

in the EU

Deposit

Refund

Systems

in the EU

2023 Update

Author: Tugce Tugran

Reviewers: Jean-Benoît Bel, Françoise

Bonnet

Lay-out: Gaëlle Colas, Solène Padeletti

Research date: February 2023 to

November 2023

Publication date: December 2023

Pictures: Adobe Stock, Unsplash,

Flaticon

No part of this publication may be

reproduced in any form or by any

electronic or mechanical means including

information storage and retrieval

systems, without permission in writing

from ACR+. The only exception is by a

reviewer, who may quote short excerpts

in a review.

AISBL ACR+

Avenue des Arts 3-4-5

B-1210 Brussels

0455.424.995

RPM Bruxelles

The Association of

Cities and Regions for

sustainable Resource

management (ACR+) is

an international network

of cities and regions

sharing the aim of

promoting a sustainable

resource management

and accelerating the transition towards

a circular economy on their territories

and beyond. Circular economy calling

for cooperation between all actors,

ACR+ is open to other key players in the

eld of material resource management

such as NGOS, academic institutions,

consultancy or private organisations.

Throughout its activities, ACR+ strives to

develop the expertise and skills of public

authorities in eective wasteproduct-

resource policies, as well as encourage

practical action. The association provides

support to regional and local authorities

in their new challenges and promotes

cooperation and partnership to develop

eco-ecient solutions.

www.acrplus.org

[email protected]

Acknowledgement

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Table of contents

Table of abbreviations and deﬁnitions 4

Executive summary 6

Introduction 8

Scope and methodology 9

Developments at EU and international level since 2019 10

An increasingly ambitious EU legislation to tackle a growing problem 11

International context 15

Section 2: The evolution of DRS in Europe since 2019 17

Sweden 19

Iceland 21

Finland 22

Norway 23

Denmark 25

Germany 26

The Netherlands 28

Estonia 30

Croatia 32

Lithuania 34

Slovakia 35

Latvia 36

Malta 37

Romania 38

Section 3: Reusable beverage containers: an important but (often) overlooked

dimension of deposit systems 39

Section 4: The big picture: role of DRS in managing (some of) our waste 43

Section 5: A meta-discussion on DRS: recommendations for future research 49

Conclusions 52

Endnotes 53

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Table of abbreviations and

deﬁnitions

CEAP Circular Economy Action Plan

Composite Packaging*

Packaging made of two or more layers of dierent materials which cannot

be separated by hand and form a single integral unit, consisting of an inner

receptacle and an outer enclosure, that it is lled, stored, transported and

emptied as such.

Consumers

Citizens/customers who buy beverages in packaging on which deposit is

payable, and receive it back upon return.

Deposit Return System

Deposit refund schemes charge users an extra fee when they buy a product,

which is refunded if the product packaging is returned for recycling or reuse.

DKK Danish Krone

DRS Deposit Refund System

ELV End of Life Vehicles

EPR Scheme

A set of measures taken by a state to ensure that producers of products bear

nancial responsibility or nancial and organisational responsibility for the

management of the waste stage of a product’s life cycle.

EUR Euro

GHG emission Greenhouse Gas Emissions

HRK Croatian Kuna

ISK Icelandic Króna

LRA Local and Regional Authority

MS Member States (EU)

OECD Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development

Operators*

In relation to packaging shall mean suppliers of packaging materials,

packaging producers and converters, llers, and users, importers, traders and

distributors, authorities and statutory organizations.

ORD Own Resource Decision

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

PMD Paper Metal Drink Cartons fractions

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

PPWD Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive

PRO

Producer Responsibility Organisation – collective organisation in charge of

meeting individual producers' obligations arising from the application of EPR

principles.

Producers

Includes beverage manufacturers, breweries, importers and trademark

owners. These are enterprises that package, import or sell packaged

beverages in the course of their economic or professional activities.

Recycling*

The reprocessing in a production process of the waste materials for the

original purpose or for other purposes including organic recycling but excluding

energy recovery.

Retailers

Includes stores, shops, supermarkets that sell beverages to consumers and

then accept the returned packaging on which deposit is payable, refunding the

deposit back to the consumer.

Reverse Vending

Machine (RVM)

Automated device which accepts empty beverage containers and issues a

refund for deposit amount attached to the container that has been previously

paid.

Reusable packaging*

Packaging which has been conceived, designed and placed on the market

to accomplish within its lifecycle multiple trips or rotations by being relled or

reused for the same purpose for which it was conceived.

Reuse*

Any operation by which packaging, which has been conceived and designed

to accomplish within its life cycle a minimum number of trips or rotations,

is relled or used for the same purpose for which it was conceived, with or

without the support of auxiliary products present on the market enabling the

packaging to be relled.

RON Romanian Leu

rPET Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate

Single-use beverage

packaging

Beverage packaging intended to be used only once by the consumer.

SUPD Single-Use Plastics Directive

USD United States Dollars

WRAP The Waste and Resources Action Programme

Denitions marked with * come directly from the EU legislation.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

This publication is a follow up to the ACR+

report on Deposit Return Systems (DRS)

for single use-packaging that was published

in 2019. The almost ve-year time frame

between the two publications has been an

important period in the European and world

history. Together, we witnessed a global

pandemic, the start of wars still on-going

and an economic crisis. The push for a more

sustainable, healthier, and fairer Europe

gained new impetus in the same period with

the European Green Deal and the legislative

overhaul it triggered.

Executive summary

European

countries

have a deposit system

in place for beverage

packaging, covering

164 million

citizens

living in the EU and EFTA

In November 2023

Against this background, policy makers at all

governance levels, including local and regional level

found themselves facing new challenges but also

discovering new opportunities. Most of these are

interconnected: from plastic pollution to resource

eciency, from climate change to loss of biodiversity.

To face these complex and interconnected

challenges, we need a mix of policy tools that are

ecient, fair, and ambitious. Deposit systems are one

of the tools in the policy arsenal and have impacts

on a wide range of issues from pollution to more

sustainably designed products.

As underlined in the section 1 of this report, the

relevance of waste management tools such as

deposit systems has been emphasised in the latest

EU and global developments. Legislation stemming

from the Green Deal is increasingly demanding in

terms of waste and resource management and has

implications for the local and regional authorities.

The most important among these are the Circular

Economy Action Plan, Single-Use Plastics Directive,

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Landll

Directive, and the Own Resource Decision. At the

same time, developments at global level such as the

changes made to The Basel Convention and third

countries banning plastic waste imports are putting

additional pressure to all parties, forcing them to

better manage their waste by collecting and recycling

more, and ideally not to create waste the rst place.

This comes at a time when the waste is growing,

presenting a double-challenge.

It is therefore no surprise that these challenges make

policy tools like deposit systems attractive. At the

end of 2023, 14 European countries (DE, DK, EE, FI,

HR, IS, LT, LV, MT, NL, NO, RO, SE, and SK) have

a deposit system in place for beverage packaging,

mostly targeting single-use containers. Romania has

become the latest, in November 2023. This makes

the total number of people living with a deposit

system 164 million in the EU and EFTA countries.

Some of the systems have been around for decades,

while others were introduced in the last two years.

Read the 2019 report

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Many other systems are currently being developed.

The existing ones vary in terms of organisational

choices, materials and beverages involved and the

roles and responsibilities for dierent stakeholders.

Overall, they achieve high collecting and recycling

rates for the beverage packaging types that they

target. They also contribute to reduce litter to some

extent and inuence design choices even though

the magnitude of these impacts has not been fully

researched.

The second part of the report aims at contributing

to a general discussion about the deposit systems.

This is mainly about looking at the bigger picture,

focusing on the potentials and limitations of deposit

return systems in addressing pressing issues such

as waste reduction and plastic pollution. When

these are explored, we can see that their potential

impact depends on many factors, and we are

looking at a mix picture. While deposit systems

increase collection and recycling rates, they do not

necessarily address waste hierarchy by design. For

instance, only a small minority of deposit systems

in the EU include reusable beverage packaging

in their policy framework. This leads to an over-

emphasis for recycling, which is, based on waste

hierarchy, a less desirable choice than reuse. In

the same vein, deposit systems encourage more

recyclable products or provide purer recyclate but

they do not guarantee circularity of packaging. The

latter requires a whole ecosystem with reusables

and where not possible, an ecient collection,

recycling network as well as secondary materials

market, stable in supply and demand and nancially

attractive to economic operators. When it comes

to reducing litter, there is evidence that deposit

systems contribute to limiting the pollution, but this

does not mean they can solve this growing problem

on their own, nor address legacy pollution.

It is important to emphasise that these limitations

are not a reason for not making use of this

eective policy tool. They simply point out to the

shortcomings in our knowledge that we need to

address. These include a better understanding of

the relationship between the quantities of beverage

packaging and the total quantities of relevant

material and waste ows in circulation. In the same

vein, we need to have a better understanding of the

impacts on litter with before/after comparisons from

eld surveys. Both necessitate robust, transparent

and publicly available data, which is currently

limited.

Further, while exploring the existing deposit

systems, we need comparative frameworks that

go beyond descriptive analyses. This will help

discerning blueprints, for instance important

structural elements across these varying systems

which can be replicated elsewhere. We also need

to better explore the relationship between Extended

Producer Responsibility schemes and deposit

systems since the interaction between the two

seems to be crucial for the eectiveness of both.

Finally, we need to develop a deeper understanding

at product and material level. Since materials like

glass, aluminium or plastic have dierent properties,

market values and consumption trends, dierent

measures might be more eective for each. This will

avoid adopting blanket measures, or binary choices

between ‘deposit or not deposit’.

Addressing these gaps will help us to netune future

policy choices, while continuing to explore context-

based solutions. The increasing number of countries

implementing deposit systems will certainly help in

this regard, with more information and insights.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

The policy landscape around resource management

and circular economy in the EU is constantly

evolving. This comes as a response not only to

EU’s own sustainability ambitions but also to global

challenges, including raw material shortages and

volatility of energy markets, supply dependencies

and ever-increasing waste quantities and pollution

despite numerous initiatives. These complex and

interdependent challenges necessitate holistic

approaches which need to be designed and

implemented with the participation of diverse

stakeholders. In such a context, no actor or policy is

insignicant.

Against this background, deposit refund systems

(DRS) are getting increasing attention and are

introduced in a growing number of countries

around the world. It has been proposed as a ‘no

regret’ policy solution to some of the most pressing

challenges of waste management, particularly low

separate collection and recycling rates as well as

littering. A specic instrument targeting beverage

packaging, deposit systems function as a sub-form

of extended producer responsibility (EPR). While

making the producers responsible for nancing

and organising a collection system, they also rely

on cooperation between diverse stakeholders,

from citizens to retailers. They also contribute to

shaping consumer behaviour as they incite them to

take back their empty containers with an economic

incentive. As such, they represent an important

policy tool combining complex issues with principles

such as good governance.

In January 2019, ACR+ published a detailed study

on DRS for single-use beverage containers in

Europe exploring the existing mechanisms in place

in the EU Member States. The study aimed at

identifying good practices and drawing lessons for

the policy makers to better design and implement

such systems.

Incidentally, 2019 was the year of the European

Green Deal, a major moment in the history of the

European Union, setting out a holistic and ambitious

roadmap for the continent. It is the reection

of the policy ambition to become a healthier,

toxic-free, climate neutral and fairer society by

2050. It triggered many initiatives in all policy

areas, including those directly related to waste

and resource management. The most pertinent

examples are the Single-Use Plastic Directive or the

Circular Economy Action Plan. The work stemming

from the European Green Deal is on-going and will

continue to shape the policies of the Union for years

to come.

These challenges and the policy developments

have direct implications for the local and regional

authorities. At the junction where global challenges

become local realities, policy tools like deposit

systems have never been more pertinent.

Furthermore, with the evolving challenges, it

is important to understand their less-explored

dimensions such as their contribution to reuse

and rell. It is therefore important to revisit our

knowledge on the topic, understand the new

developments and keep up with the ever-changing

landscape.

Introduction

The study

Against this background, it is time to revisit the 2019 study to integrate the new realities we are facing

today. This new report builds on the previous one, without repeating the information that was already

available in 2019. Instead, it only underlines what has been changed, both on Member State and EU level

in terms of policy. For the MS, new data on 10 MS

that already had a deposit system in place is provided,

where available.

We also took the opportunity to discuss some of the main questions around deposit systems. We focused

on their eectiveness in reducing littering, costs and benets for dierent actors involved, their interactions

with other policy tools such as Extended Producer Responsibility schemes. Another important addition

is a short section on reuse and rell, as this aspect will become increasingly important but remains

underexplored.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Scope and

methodology

The scope of the study is the developments at EU

level and the Member States regarding deposit

systems since 2019, mainly focusing on single-use

beverage packaging.

Desk research and targeted literature review are the

main methods used. For updating the information

for the Member States included in the previous

study, we refer to national data, either from the

organisation centrally managing the DRS or other

various resources. Where needed, we completed

this with secondary resources.

We used publicly available information on system

results from the DRS schemes and consulted

relevant actors where this data was not available.

We conducted a literature review to answer the

main questions of the study, including:

• What are the latest legislative developments

at the EU level which have an impact on

deposit systems?

• What are the overall positive arguments for

deposit systems?

• What are the shortcomings and negative

arguments for deposit systems?

• What is the impact of deposit systems on

multiple topics such as recycled content,

litter, and sustainable product design?

Section 1

This section provides an overview of the latest

developments at EU and international level relevant

for packaging waste management in general and

deposit return systems in particular.

Section 2

This section provides an update on the situation

in the MS where DRS was already in place

in 2019 and presents the four new systems

launched since then.

Section 3

This section is a brief overview of the systems in

the EU that currently incorporate reusable beverage

packaging and insights from their experience.

Section 4

This section discusses the main questions around

deposit systems based on the latest information

available, trying to contribute some insights. It also

includes a sub-section on the relationship between

the deposit systems and EPR schemes.

Section 5

This section addresses some of the ‘meta’ issues

regarding DRS, focusing on insights based on desk

research and provide some suggestions to improve

the understanding of DRS.

Limitations and need for

further research

Several limitations must be mentioned:

• Some MS do not have data on the system

results, and this was conrmed with the

relevant PRO organisation. This is mentioned

in the section dedicated to the MS.

• There are some gaps in the data. The

most important is the ratio between the

quantities of beverage packaging subject to

a deposit system to the overall packaging in

circulation in the country. Further, in some

cases, the deposit system does not cover

the entire market. Such limitations hinder a

comprehensive overview of the real impact of

deposit systems.

• A comparative analysis of deposit systems

should be further explored. Although there

are descriptive comparisons, a more

useful analysis would rely on an analytical

framework which would identify common

building blocks and divergencies between the

existing systems.

• The reusable packaging, although a potential

(and sometimes already) part of the deposit

systems, are mostly missing from the existing

analysis. In this report we dedicate a section

to it, but this issue needs further exploring.

Developments at EU and

international level since 2019

Section 1

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

The Circular Economy

Action Plan (2020)

An important turning point in the EU legislation

relevant for waste and packaging is the new

Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) adopted

in 2020

. DRS is not directly mentioned in the

CEAP. However, its ambitions regarding reducing

litter, waste prevention, higher recycling rates (for

instance for plastics) or restricting single-use items

are all relevant policy goals for which DRS can be

deployed as an important instrument.

Already before CEAP, the

EU Strategy for Plastics

had already set out

similar ambitions such

as improving collection,

sorting and treatment

systems for plastics

and preventing litter.

Unlike the CEAP, the

EU Strategy for Plastics

makes direct reference to

EPR (extended producer

responsibility) and DRS as

important tools to achieve

these objectives

Own Resource Decision

(2021)

Unlike the other policy initiatives in this section,

the Own Resource Decision (ORD) is about the

EU’s budget, structuring how it is nanced by the

Member States and borrowing from the nancial

markets. What is relevant for DRS however, is that

it introduced a national contribution linked to non-

recycled plastic packaging waste. This was the rst

own resource created since 1988

. In practice, this

means that the Member States will pay directly to

the EU budget EUR 0.80 per kilogram for plastic

packaging waste that is not recycled

. This will be

calculated based on the methods laid out in the

Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and as

reported to the Eurostat

. This creates an important

incentive to increase recycling performance, in

addition to mandatory requirements, and can

become an argument to introduce a DRS system.

Even though a DRS system has its own costs to

set up and run, these might be counterbalanced, at

least partially, with the payments avoided based on

the ORD.

Single-Use Plastics

Directive (2019)

Another directly related legislation is the Single-Use

Plastics Directive (SUPD), published in 2019 (entry

into force in 2021). It aims at minimising the impacts

of single-use plastic products on the environment.

Among other important measures, SUPD introduced

new responsibilities/obligations for the producers,

specically concerning management of waste and

clean-up costs related to the single use products.

Previously, Waste Framework Directive (Directive

2008/98/EC) and Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive (Directive 94/62/EC) addressed a more

limited area within this eld, making the producers

responsible for the waste management operations

for their products. SUPD extends this to other

activities such as covering litter cleaning costs

public spaces and marine areas, collecting data

on collection and treatment activities, as well as

awareness raising activities targeting the public to

prevent pollution in the rst place

SUPD is directly relevant for DRS because it

introduced a mandatory separate collection target

for single-use plastic bottles: 77% for 2025, and

90% by 2029. It also requires that at least 25%

of plastic bottles are made of recycled PET by

2025 and of 30% by 2030

. Given the current

collection and recycling performance in many

Member States, reaching these targets will require

substantial eorts. DRS is often mentioned, also

by the European Commission

, a potential way of

improving separate collection and recycling rates,

as well as securing purer (less contaminated)

recyclate

An increasingly ambitious EU legislation

to tackle a growing problem

More on the BASEL Convention

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Waste Package (Part of CEAP) (2018-Present)

Name Status Relevance

for DRS

Important links

Waste Framework

Directive (Directive

2008/98/EC)

Expected revision in

2023

High Targets directly impact recycling and calculations

methods determine the performance, see section

below

Directive 1999/31

on land-lling of

Waste ((Directive

(EU) 2018/850))

Amended in 2018 High The restriction of landlling will increase the need

for other methods of waste management, including

recycling

Directive 94/62/EC

on Packaging and

Packaging Waste

Amended in 2018

(Directive (EU)

2018/852)

Proposal for a

regulation published

in Q4 2022

High Possible introduction of DRS and other links see

section below

Directive 2000/53/

EC on End-of-life

vehicles

Revision on going

Proposal for a new

regulation repealing

2000/53/EC published

in July 2023

Medium The proposal sets out a target of 25% for recycled

plastic content for vehicles, 25% of which should

come from ELVs. This will increase demand for

recycled plastic

Currently, it is estimated that 5% of vehicles

composition is PET, but this is expected to rise.

Recycled PET is also used in applications such as

seat fabrics, underbody panels or air deectors. One

of the sources of recycled PET for such applications

is post-consumer packaging

. With rising shares

of rPET in vehicle manufacturing, demand from

automotive sector will put additional strain and

competitive pressure on close-loop recycling for

beverage packaging.

Directive on

batteries and

accumulators

(Directive 2006/66/

EC)

Last amended in 2018 Low NA

Directives on

waste electrical

and electronic

equipment

Currently undergoing

evaluation

Low NA

Others (2019-Present)

Single-Use Plastics

Directive

(The Directive EU)

2019/904)

In force (2021) High SUP introduced separate collection targets for plastic

bottles: 77% by 2025 and 90% by 2029.

It also introduced mandatory recycled content for

PET bottles, 25% from 2025 and 30% for all plastic

beverage bottles by 2030.

Own Resource

Decision (2020)

In force since 2021 High Direct contribution from the MS to the EU budget

based on the amount of plastic not recycled.

EU Waste Shipment

Regulation

Commission proposal

in negotiation with

the Parliament and

the Council, the latter

adopted its position in

May 2023

High Restrictions to ship waste outside of the EU

Basel Convention

(2021)

Amendments to the

Convention in 2021

High Amendments to Annexes II, VIII and IX of the Basel

Convention making it more dicult to ship hazardous

waste outside of EU

Table 3 Overview of relevant legislation and changes since 2018-2019

The evolution of DRS in

Europe since 2019

Section 2

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

This section looks at developments since 2019 at Member State level. At the time of writing,

14 European countries ( DE, DK, EE, FI, HR, IS, LT, LV, MT, SK, NL, NO, RO, SE ) have a DRS

in place, covering a 164 million people across the continent

. In addition to this, there are several

countries where DRS is in the development phase (e.g. Portugal, Austria) or will be launched in the

near future (Ireland, Luxembourg

). In some cases, like Scotland, the implementation was delayed

despite the system being ready to launch.

Updates for MS with DRS in place prior to 2019

The rst 10 factsheets present a quick update for the 10 countries which already had a system in

2019: Croatia, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway,

and Sweden. As mentioned in the introduction, we will not repeat the descriptive elements of

these systems. These are provided in the previous report and many other resources listed in the

bibliography. Instead, we will provide a short overview and focus on what changed (if any) in terms of

legislation and provide latest available data on system performance.

Four new deposit systems in Europe since 2019

The four last factsheets present a brief description of the four new systems introduced since 2019:

Latvia, Malta, Romania, and Slovakia.

Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Origins of the return system in Sweden dates back

to early 20

century, which is still in place for glass

bottles. A separate DRS for single-use aluminium

cans was introduced in 1984 and later was

extended to PET bottles in 1994

. The system

was initially based on voluntary participation but

became mandatory in 2005

. In Sweden, the

DRS is functioning under the broader framework

of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as

the municipality does not provide door to door

collection service for the recyclable packaging

materials, including beverage containers

. The

latest legal framework for DRS is based on the

Ordinance (2022:1274) on producer responsibility

for packaging

Pantamera (also known as Returpack), a private,

not for prot entity is responsible for managing

the system centrally, from collection to sorting of

material as well as sale to recycling facilities

Its owners include retailers, brewers and grocery

stores associations.

The DRS covers single-use PET and aluminium

beverage containers up to 3L in volume. Almost

all drinks are included with the exception dairy

products

. The deposit fee is variable depending

on the volume and the material, either EUR 0.08

(all aluminium and plastic less than 1L) or

EUR 0.16 (plastic bigger than 1L)

The following developments since 2019 are worth

mentioning:

• Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for

Packaging

(2022:1274) came into force

in 2022, combining into one two separate

legislations (EPR Regulation (2018:1462)

and the regulation on return systems for

plastic bottles and metal cans (2005:220)

- It introduced mandatory DRS for

juice and fruit syrups which were

voluntary since 2018 (started as of

2023).

- Dairy products in metal cans can

participate voluntarily

(to be made

mandatory as of 2028)

Update on targets and

system performance

Both Statistics Sweden and Pantamera provide

information on the performance of the system.

Statistics Sweden provides separate data on

single-use cans and PET bottles subject to DRS.

According to Pantamera, 3 billion units subject

to DRS were put onto the market in 2022, a 10%

increase compared to previous year. Collection

rates are 87.8% for aluminium cans and 86.7%

for PET. The overall collection rate is 87.5%

5152

It is reported that the cross-border movements

of consumers between in Sweden and Norway

impact these results. Norwegian consumers buy

beverages in Sweden therefore take these items

out of the country-lowering the collection rate

Recycling rates is available from Statistics

Sweden. Based on the data available, recycling

rates for PET bottles and cans within the deposit

system uctuates between 81% and 90% since

2012, with PET recycling rates consistently lower

with the exception of year 2019. Sweden is close

to reaching the overall 90% recycling target.

Sweden

Start date: 1984

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Figure 1 Collection rates for single-use aluminium cans and PET bottles subject to DRS, based on volumes put onto the market 2019-2022

(source: Pantamera)

Figure 2 Recycling rates for aluminium cans and PET bottles subject to DRS, based on volumes put onto the market, 2012-2021

(source: Statistics Sweden)

85%

88%

87%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2019 2020 2021 2022

Can PET Total

82%

90%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

PET Cans

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Iceland has a DRS in place for single-use beverage

packaging since 1989, one of the earliest in the

world. The legal framework is based on Law No.

52/1989 (Law against environmental pollution

caused by disposable packaging)

and Regulation

750/2017 (Regulation on the collection, recycling

and return fee for disposable beverage packaging)

which replaced Regulation 368/2000 (Regulation

on the collection, recycling and return fee for

disposable packaging for beverages).

Endurvinnslan, the central operator is managing

the scheme on the island since its establishment,

including all stages of operations. It has a larger

spectrum of ownership compared to other countries,

including the state, metal treatment companies,

national scout association and local authorities

together with beverage manufacturers

DRS system is one of the most comprehensive in

Europe, covering all alcoholic and non-alcoholic

drinks of all sizes. Only exceptions are fresh milk

and fresh milk products and fruit extracts

. Single-

use plastic, aluminium (cans) and glass beverage

packaging are included.

There was no changes to the system since 2019,

except for a small increase in the deposit fee in

2021 from ISK 16 to ISK 18 (approx. EUR 0.13).

This is a standard deposit fee which applies to all

types of material and volume

Updates on target and

system performance

Limited information is available from the

Endurvinnslan’s website. We could not identify

yearly reports or similar providing a year-to-year

overview.

In the graph below, it can be seen that plastic and

aluminium packaging within the system reach high

recycling rates with lower rates for glass. Information

presented on the Endurvinnslan’s website mentions

that glass has been used as substrate rather than

recycled, but they have started shipping the glass

for recycling in May 2023

Figure 3 Recycling rates for glass, plastic and aluminium beverage packaging in Iceland (source: Endurvinnslan)

Iceland

Start date: 1989

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

In Finland, DRS for single-use beverage packaging

started with cans in 1996, it was expanded to PET

bottles in 2008 and to glass bottles in 2011

. The

main legislation providing the framework for the

DRS are Government Decree on a return system

for beverage containers (526/2013)

and Waste Act

(646/2011)

DRS participation is not mandatory but by

participating, producers avoid paying the Beverage

Packaging Tax introduced in 1994, currently

EUR 0.51 per litre

. As a result, most of the

producers joined the system, except for those

putting very small volumes in the market

There are multiple system operators, the biggest

being PALPA (Suomen Palautuspakkaus Oy)

, a

non-prot company owned by beverage producers

and retailers. It manages the operations but does

not own any equipment (such as recycling plants

or RVMs), all of which are outsourced

. PALPA is

representing the majority of the beverage market

falling under DRS.

The system covers cans, plastic bottles and both

single-use glass bottles of volume 0.1 to 3L. Finland

has a relatively large coverage of product range

from water to strong alcoholic drinks (up to 80% in

volume). Only exception is dairy products. Dierent

deposit fees apply to dierent sizes and materials.

There are no changes to the system since 2019.

Updates on target and

system performance

Comprehensive overview of return and recycling

rates is not available. Some gures are available

from PALPA’s website: around 2 billion beverage

units are returned in Finland every year and return

rates for 3 single-use product groups for the last

three years are the following

Table 4 Return rates for dierent materials (source: PALPA)

2020 2021 2022

Cans

98 97 99

PET

92 90 90

Glass

95 98 98

Finland

Start date: 1996

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Norway has a DRS targeting single-use beverage

containers since 1999. Since 1995, the country

has a tax-based incentivisation policy. Taxes on

beverage packaging are reduced as their collection

rates increase: starting from 25% as the minimum

and lifted entirely if the rate reaches 95%

. Thus,

participation to the system is not mandatory, but

much more advantageous compared to operating

a separate process for each producer. This results

almost all of the producers participating to the

scheme

. The system, which promotes collective

success, had reached its set targets: the tax on

bottles was lifted in 2011 and its counterpart for

cans was lifted 2012 as both reached 95% collection

rate

The industry-led non-prot entity Innitum

(previously known as Norsk Resirk) was established

in 1996 to manage the system, from collection

to recycling. It is owned by manufacturers and

retailers.

The system includes all plastic and metal single-use

beverage containers of volume between 125mL to

4.9L

. The law does not specify any exceptions

There are no changes legislation since 2019, but the

following is relevant for the scope of the scheme:

• Various industry players joined the

scheme on voluntary basis, for instance

a producer of plastic beer kegs of 10L,

20L and 30L and festivals to collect and

recycle plastic cups

Update on targets and

system performance

Both nancial and operational data is available in

yearly reports published by Innitum, also in English.

The reports provide an overview of yearly return and

recycling rates as well as nancial statements. The

system is highly successful, achieving more than

90% return rates for both materials since 2020

Recycling rates are also very high, consistently

reaching above 95% since 2016 for both materials

Norway

Start date: 1999

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Figure 4 Return rates for single-use PET bottles and cans participating to DRS, 2016-2022, based on weight (source:

Innitum yearly reports)

Figure 5 Recycling rates for single-use PET bottles and cans participating to DRS, 2016-2022, based on weight

(source: Innitum yearly reports)

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Denmark is one of the early adopters of DRS. The

system was put in place in 2002, directly following

the introduction of single-use bottles to the Danish

market. It has been slowly expanding to other

products/types of containers since then. The main

legal framework for DRS is the Statutory Order on

Deposits

, which was last amended in 2020

DRS is managed centrally by Dansk Retursystem

since 2002

, whose members include producers,

retailers and public entities

.The system covers

single-use containers of glass, can and plastic with

a volume up to 20L (depending on the material, this

changes). Reusables are also covered but this will

be discussed in section 3.

There are dierent deposit fees for glass, cans and

plastics bottles of dierent sizes

• DKK 1.00 for glass bottles and aluminium

cans less than 1L

• DKK 1.50 for plastic bottles less than 1L.

• DKK 3.00 for all bottles and cans

between 1 to 20L.

The system did not change since 2019 except for

the following:

• Fruit juices and concentrates are included

since 2020

• The operating fees are steadily going down

as the system becomes self-sucient.

Average fees for packaging to be paid

by producers continues its downward

trajectory: since 2017, it was reduced by

98%. The rising costs due to energy prices

and ination were compensated by high

revenues from recyclable materials. As a

result, this means all operating expenses

of the Dansk Retursystem can be covered

by the revenues. 2022-2023 period

achieved 100% self-suciency for all three

material groups

Update on targets and

system performance

Over 2 billion units were returned to the system in

2022. Collection rates for packaging remain over

90% and stable

. Target for 2025 was set at 93%

for single-use packaging, which might have been

reached already in 2023

. There is no separate

information on recycling rates, however it is safe to

assume that the return recycling rate approach the

return rates with little loss in the process.

Figure 6 Return rates for beverage packaging within the DRS, overall and by material (source: Danksretursystem,

compiled from yearly reports)

Denmark

Start date: 2002

92% 92%

93%

92%

85%

86%

87%

88%

89%

90%

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

2019 2020 2021 2022

Plastics Metal Glass Overall

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Germany’s DRS was introduced in 2003 with

the main goal of preserving the market share of

reusable bottles, that fell below 72% in 1997, which

triggered the DRS legislation

. Thus, reusable issue

is an inherent part of the DRS debate in the country,

as further discussed in section 3.

The main legal framework laying out the basis and

implementation of the packaging waste is the new

German Packaging Act (VerpackG)

which entered

into force in 2019, replacing the German Packaging

Ordinance

. It lays out the legal framework for DRS

but its scope is wider, including all packaging waste.

Unlike most other countries, the system is not

centralised. The Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH

(DPG), established in 2005, is overseeing the

administrative side of the system. It ensures smooth

running for all actors involved in the system by

providing the legal and organisational framework.

This includes standard labelling of beverage

containers that are in the system, keeping a central

database of all actors registered and providing

IT systems to enable the use of unique barcodes

and ensuring the contracts are legally compliant

It does not take part in the operations which are

organised between the manufacturers and retailers.

DPG is jointly owned by retailers and beverage

manufacturers.

The system covers single-use plastic, aluminium

and glass bottles up to 3L. A standard fee of

EUR 0.25 is applied to all single-use packaging,

among the highest in the world

There have been multiple changes to the Packaging

Act since 2019. These were motivated mainly by the

evolving EU regulation (e.g the Single-Use Plastics

Directive

), the issue of ‘free-riders’, the impacts of

online retail sector and challenges associated with

excessive amounts of single-use packaging use that

emerged during the pandemic.

Overall, an expansion of obligations towards an

increasing number of operators (from producers to

initial and nal distributors) and to other products is

observed. This applies both to EPR in general and

DRS in particular.

The following changes are relevant for this study:

• Since January 2022 and triggered by the

transposition of the EU Single-Use Plastics

Directive

, mandatory deposit was extended

to the following items previously exempted

from the scheme, (with the condition that

they are sold in single-use plastic bottles or

cans with a volume between 0.1 to 3L):

- Wine and sparkling wine drinks (as

they are and mixed with other drinks);

- Wine-like drinks and mixed drinks;

- Alcohol products and other mixed

drinks containing alcohol;

- Fruit juices and vegetable juices;

- Non-carbonated fruit nectars and

non-carbonated vegetable nectars

;

- Milk, and mixed-milk drinks, other

dairy products, beverages for infants

or young children (if sold in cans only,

to be expanded to plastic bottles in

2024)

These changes eectively mean that almost all

single-use beverage containers are subject to DRS

in Germany

. Furthermore, there are some changes

to the administrative obligations of producers:

• As of July 2022, manufacturers of single-

use beverage containers subject to DRS

will have to register to the LUCID, the

central register managing all packaging-

related obligations of the market operators

Previously, due to the separate system,

they were exempted from this obligation, if

subject to DRS. This comes as an additional

step to registering with the DPG.

Germany

Start date: 2003

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

• In line with the EU legislation, the German

Packaging Act introduced minimum 25% and

30% recycled content for plastic bottles by

2025 and 2030 respectively.

Update on targets and

system performance

Since there is not a centralised entity responsible

for the whole DRS structure, information on overall

performance is not available. ‘Pieces of the puzzle’

need to be compiled from multiple resources. The

German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt)

provides information about the overall packaging

waste management and recycling in the country.

The latest report estimates that the volume of

beverages consumed in Germany covered by

the DRS amounts to 32 billion litres (out of 42.6

billion litres total consumed), around 70% of the

whole beverage market for up to 10L containers

However, these reports do not provide information

on collection or recycling rates.

The overall recycling performance for all packaging

waste is available from the German Environment

Agency and the Central Packaging Register

(Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister) who reports

data based on the Packaging Act Requirements.

However, as mentioned earlier, these do not provide

information on the DRS results.

For the DRS system exclusively, data is scattered

and not up to date. It was not possible to identify a

report providing detailed, year-to-year information.

Since the DPG does not the overview of the

ows, it does not an overview of the quantities

and refers to other sources, such as the reports

from the German Environment Agency. Bund

Getrankeverpackungen, the industry initiative

working only with single-use beverage packaging

provides some data on recycling rates for single-use

beverage packaging. They publish reports based on

research done by the GVM (Society for Packaging

Market Research) a private market research

company specialising in beverage packaging.

However, these reports are not published regularly,

the latest one dating 2019

100

. The recycling rate

for PET bottles is 94% for 2019 and 31.4% of

PET bottles is composed of recycled material

101

The website of the PET FORUM, another industry

association (German Association for Plastics

packaging and Films) reports that 98% of the PET

bottles in Germany are recycled

102

without specifying

the information source.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

In the Netherlands, a DRS is in place since

2005 for single-use plastic bottles

103

. The latest

legal framework laying out the conditions of the

DRS is the Packaging Decree (Besluit Beheer

Verpakkingen)

104

. The deposit system initially

covered only plastic beverage containers bigger

than 1L in volume. In 2018, the Dutch government

gave the producers and importers time until 2021 to

reach 90% recycling rate for small bottles (smaller

than 1L. Failure to reach this target triggered the

latest amendments to the aforementioned legislation

and changes mentioned below.

Statiegeld Nederland is managing the deposit

system, overseeing the implementation and

activities from collection to recycling

105

. Another

important actor is the Waste Fund (Het Afvalfonds)

the professional responsibility organisation in the

country for all packaging

106

. The latter is responsible

for various nancial aspects of the deposit

system

107

The system covers water, beer and other low

alcoholic drinks and soft drinks. Excluded beverages

are dairy, pure fruit juice and syrups, medium and

high alcohol content drinks (wine, spirits)

108

. Juice

producers can participate on a voluntary basis

109

Currently the system includes plastic bottles and

cans of up to 3L. The coverage has expanded

signicantly with the changes introduced since

2019:

• The Packaging Decree was amended to

include small plastics bottles (<1L) , included

in the system as of July 2021

110

and;

• Beverage cans (metal and aluminium)

smaller than 3L as of April 2023

111

Variable deposit fees applied depending on the

material and size: EUR 0.15 small plastic bottles,

EUR 0.25 for plastic bottlers bigger than 1L and

EUR 0.15 for cans

112

An important and clearly stated dimension of the

system in the Netherlands is the issue of littering.

Since 2008, regular litter surveys

113

in the country

allow to quantify the scale of the problem

114

. In

the recent years (2019 and 2020

115

), they showed

growing quantities of plastic bottles and cans in the

environment. This pushed the Dutch government

to propose a mandatory deposit system for cans in

case the littering was not reduced by 70% by 2020

compared to 2016/2017

116

. The amount of plastic

and cans in the environment continued growing

hence their current inclusion in the system.

Update on targets and

system performance

New targets were introduced with the

aforementioned legal amendments. The current

targets cover all beverage packaging with or without

deposit:

• 90% of all plastic bottles from 1 January

2022

117

;

• 90% of metal cans from 1 January 2024

118

There is no data available on the return and

recycling rates from Statiegeld Nederland as the

latter does not have data on the quantities of

beverage packaging put on the market

119

Very limited information is available from

Afvalfondsverpakkingen:

• Around 1.5 billion large and small single-use

plastic bottles are collected annually,

• This is expected to grow to 3.5 billion when

aluminium cans are added

120

• For single-use plastic bottles, the overall

return rate is 68% and 64% is collected

121

through the deposit system

122

• Looking only at single-use plastic bottles

that are within the deposit system, the return

rate is 75%

123124

. More specically, 88%

The Netherlands

Start date: 2005

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

for large bottles (already subject to DRS

prior to July 2021) and 58% for smaller

bottles (introduced as of July 2021)

125

It is reasonable to assume that as the

consumers will take up the habit of returning

small plastic bottles, the return rate will go

higher.

• 97% of all aluminium packaging was

recycled or reused in the country in 2022.

There is no separate data on aluminium

cans as they are still not part of the deposit

system.

The results for plastic bottles show that

improvements are needed to achieve

the 90% target. Both Statiegeld and the

Afvalfondsverpakkingen mention measures that

will be put in place to improve the return rates,

from improving the return points to a national

communication campaign

126

. A focus on improving

the collection of items consumed on the go/outside

the house such as in airports or train stations is also

mentioned

127

. On the other hand, several factors are

suggested for the under-performance. For instance

in 2021, the amendments to the existing legislation

removed the take-back obligation for retailers.

Benelux Recycling Network, a NGO working on

plastic pollution, argues that this undermined the

system, leading to fever return points. Further, they

mention the inconsistent scope for small bottles

leading to confusion among the consumers

128

On the other hand, as mentioned above, the

country is closely monitoring the litter quantities.

This provides an insight into the eectiveness of the

policy measures aiming at reducing the problem (in

this case, a 70% percent decrease in the amount

of small plastic bottles in the environment). The

Rijkswaterstaat conducts six times a year, a total

of 25 400 measurements across 1 400 locations,

complemented with a survey of 2 000 citizens

129

The monitoring system is now adapted to gather

data on small plastic bottles and cans as well

130

The latest information from 2022 states that the

incidence of small plastic bottles in the litter is

in decline whereas the overall number of single-

use plastics in the mix is increasing

131

. After their

inclusion in the DRS, the quantities of small and

bigger plastic bottles found in the environment has

decreased by 51% and 33% respectively

132

. The

incidence of cans is clearly increasing (blikjes in

graph below) as can be seen below. It is still too

soon to see the eects of the expansion of DRS to

these items.

Figure 7 Number of times a certain type of item was counted in the litter surveys: plastic bags, cans, small plastic bottles and

bigger plastic bottles (source: Rijkswaterstaat Leefomgeving)

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Estonia was the rst Baltic country to adapt DRS in

2005. The legal basis is laid out in the Packaging

Act (Pakendiseadus)

133

and Packaging Excise Duty

Act (Pakendiaktsiisi seadus)

134

The system is centralised, managed by

Eestipandipakend, a non-prot organisation owned

by the producers, importers and retailers. Through

Eestipandipakend they take responsibility for the

entire chain of DRS operations from collection to

recycling

135

A deposit fee of EUR 0.10 applies to all materials

(glass, metal, plastic) regardless of size.

DRS covers beverage packaging with a volume

between 0.1 and 3L containing soft drinks, low-

alcoholic beverages (e.g beer) and cider. Dairy

products, drinks sold in beverage cartons and strong

alcohols are excluded.

There have been no major changes to the system

since 2019, except:

• As of 2021, it is possible for strong and

low (above 6%) alcoholic drinks to join the

system on a voluntary basis

136

(e.g wine,

spirits, syrups

137

Updates on target and

system performance

Annual reports from Eestipandipakend provide data

on the quantities of single-use packaging put on the

market and returned. As seen in the graph below,

the gures uctuate since 2014, although steadily

growing since 2018, reaching a record 350M units

in 2021

138

, of which 293 M unites were returned

(84%)

139

. By weight, as expected, glass bottles

make up more than half (54%) of the share within

the total.

Return rates also uctuate between 85% and 87%

since 2017, after a rapid increase of around

10 pp compared to 2016, however the results

remain successful, with 84% return rate for the last

year reported.

Return rates vary depending on the material. Figure

9 shows the trend since 2014. Return rates for glass

and plastic have been mostly consistent, staying

above 85% with metal packaging showing a steeper

improvement, reaching 89% in 2021, from 64% in

2014. For all materials, targets are met, namely 85%

for plastic and glass and 50% for metal

140

Estonia

Start date: 2005

Figure 8 Single-use beverage packaging put on the market and collected 2014-2021(right axis), and return rates

(left axis) (source: Eestipandipakend, compiled from yearly reports)

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Figure 9 Return rates for single-use beverage packaging by material, 2014-2021 (source: Eestipandipakend, compiled

from yearly reports)

141

88%

89%

88%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Plastic Metal Glass

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Croatia has a DRS in place since 2006. The latest

legal framework for the system dates to 2015,

namely the Ordinance on Packaging and Packaging

Waste (88/2015) and Regulation on Management of

Waste Packaging (97/2015). Both legislations cover

packaging waste in general but have dedicated

sections on DRS. The Waste Management Act

(adopted in 2021) lays down collected and recycling

targets (see below) that also applies to the deposit

system

142

The Environmental Protection and Energy

Eciency Fund (FZOEU - Fond za zaštitu okoliša

i energetsku učinkovitost) is managing the DRS.

FZOEU is an ocial entity managing the revenues

and investments from extra-budgetary sources

according to the regulations concerning the

environment, energy eciency and renewable

resources

143

. As such, its eld of activity is larger, an

exception compared to other countries

144

The system covers single-use glass and PET

bottles as well as aluminium cans, with a volume

larger than 0.2L. Almost all beverages are included

(see below). A standard fee of HRK 0.5 (EUR 0.07)

applies to all volumes and materials.

Since 2019, several important amendments were

made to the legislation:

• In 2021, the system was expanded to all types

of drinks including milk and dairy products in

containers larger than 0.2L in volume. Previously

the latter were exempted

145

• In 2022, the government announced plans to

expand the DRS to all containers, including

those smaller than 0.2L and include dierent

types of packaging (composite & multi-layer)

146

Update on targets and

system performance

The new Waste Management Act (adopted in 2021)

introduced new targets for mandatory separate

collection and recycling for PET bottles (77% by

2025 and 90% by 2029%) and mandatory 25%

recycled content for PET bottles by 2025 and 30%

by 2030

147

. In 2021, around 156

148

thousand tonnes

of packaging was recovered all means combined,

which corresponds to 55% of all packaging put in

the market

149

. This falls below the 60% recovery

target (when all packaging considered). On the

other hand, recovery rates within the deposit return

system are much higher, with 88%, 93% and 81%

for PET, glass and metal/aluminium respectively

150

Additionally, it is reported that the DRS system leads

to higher quality (less impurities) material

151

Annual reports on Packaging Waste Management

from the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable

Development provide a detailed overview of

packaging waste collection and treatment. It has a

dedicated section on the beverage packaging that

fall under DRS. Only recovery rates by material

are reported. Figure 10 shows that performance is

uctuating for all three materials with PET bottles

overtaking glass and aluminium as the material with

highest return rate over the years. Furthermore,

there is a signicant drop observed for glass return

rates (from 93% to 76%) in 2021. According to the

authorities, the latest expansion of the scheme

in 2021 to cover more products mainly eected

glass bottles which constitute a large share of this

segment. It is possible that the consumers were

not bringing back all the packaging recently added

to the scheme. Since consumers might need some

time to adjust to this change, the return rates for

this type of beverage containers will very likely

slowly improve, reaching their previous levels in the

coming years.

Croatia

Start date: 2006

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Figure 10 Return rates for single-use beverage packaging subject to deposit by material, 2015-2021 (source: Croatian Ministry of

Economy and Sustainable Development)

83%

76%

81%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

PET Glass Aluminum

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Brief overview and

developments since 2019

Lithuania is one of the most recent adopters of the

DRS, which was introduced for single-use beverage

containers in 2016. The Law on Packaging and

Packaging Waste Management

152

provides the legal

basis for the system.

Užstato Sistemos Administratorius (USAD), a

non-prot organisation, is managing the scheme

centrally. It is comprised of beverage manufacturers,

importers and retailers. Together they represent

80% of the market in the country

153

Single-use glass, plastic and metal containers

of volume between 0.1 to 3L are included in the

system. Almost all types of beverages are included,

such as beer, cider, non-alcoholic drinks, alcoholic

cocktails, juices and water. Some are exempted for

glass packaging: fruit wine, fruit wine cocktails and

fruit wine drinks). A standard deposit fee of

EUR 0.10 applies, regardless of type and size

154

There are no updates to the legislative framework or

any other aspects of the system since 2019.

Update on targets and

system performance

USAD provides easily accessible, well-structured

and detailed information on the yearly performance

of the scheme through the website and yearly

reports

155

Information is available on the volumes and

quantities put on the market and collected by

material providing an overview of the performance

since the start of the scheme. In 2022, 672 million

units of packaging was collected, resulting in a

return rate of 92%

156

Figure 11 shows the results based on weight

calculations. The system is considered very

successful after the rst transition year and return

rates for glass is also improving, after slagging

behind plastic and aluminium. The 2029 target

is already achieved (90%). The success of DRS

system is particularly visible for PET recycling,

where the rate was 33% before its introduction

157

It is reported that what is collected is recycled

158

Lithuania

Start date: 2016

Figure 11 Return rates of beverage packaging subject to deposit, by material, based on weight

159

(source: own

calculations based on yearly reports of USAD)

70%

90%

88%

90%

88%

91%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

PET Glass Metal Overall

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Legislation and

implementation

Slovakia has adopted necessary amendments to

the legislation outlining the DRS in the country in

2019

160

and the system was launched in 2022, after

10 months of preparation

161

. The centralised system

is managed by Správca Zálohového Systému

(System Operator)

162

which was established in 2021

as a non-prot organisation, a consortium of four

entities (AVNM , SZVPS , SAMO and ZOSR)

163

Together, these manufacturers and retailers

represent 80% of the beverages that fall within the

DRS in the country

164

The system currently covers single-use plastic and

metal cans from 0.1 to 3L and beverages made of at

least 80% water, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic

165

In practice, this means water, soft drinks, energy

drinks, beer, wine and mixed alcoholic drinks.

Exceptions are milk drinks and drinks with a 15%

and higher alcohol content

166

. The deposit fee is

EUR 0.15, standard for all types and volumes.

Initial results

DRS is considered an essential part of achieving

the objective of separately collecting 90% of the

beverage packaging by 2025 and enabling high

quality recyclates (eg. bottle-to-bottle and can-to-

can recycling)

167

The reports from the system administrator already

provide some insights to the initial results: as of

December 2022, 294 operators are registered to the

system, putting onto the Slovakian market a total

of roughly 1.1 billion units of beverage packaging,

distributed between plastic bottles and metal cans

(56% and 44% respectively). Share of dierent

drinks (e,g wine, water, beer) is also available. Ratio

of reverse vending machines to manual operators is

roughly 3 to 1 (2 246 to 747)

168

Around 821.5 M units were collected in 2022,

achieving a 71% return rate. The latest collection

rate stood at 60% prior to the implementation of

DRS. Taking into account that the year 2022 was

transitional and drinks without deposit labelling were

still available in the market until 31 December, the

results are encouraging. The set target for 2023 is

80%

169

Slovakia

Start date: 2022

New

deposit system

in Europe since

2019

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Legislation and

implementation

Latvia, the last Baltic country to adopt a DRS,

started the full implementation of the system in

August 2022 after a transition period of six months.

Latvian National Waste Management Plan (2021-

2028) had set itself several targets (e.g 65% of

packaging materials recycled by 2025 or 10%

landll limit for household waste). These required

additional measures such as a deposit system

170

Building on this, the legislative framework enabling

the deposit system was amended in 2019

171

The central system operator, a non-prot entity

called SIA Depozīta Iepakojuma Operators (DIO)

172

was established in June 2020. It is granted the

responsibility for managing the system for a seven-

year period. It is comprised of important market

players of the Baltic region (industry, local and

regional beverage producers, retailers and AS

PET Baltija – the largest recycler in the region)

173

The system is operating on a zero-prot principle,

investing all revenues back into the system

174

. It

is supervised by the State Environmental Service,

a public authority, which ensures it is functioning

according to the principles

175

Single-use plastic (PET), metal and glass beverage

packaging are included in the system. A standard

deposit fee of EUR 0.10 applies to all types and

sizes. Initially the system covered dierent types of

drinks depending on their packaging and volume

(ranging between 0.1L to 3L):

• Carbonated and non-carbonated non-

alcoholic beverages (i.e. mineral water,

drinking water, lemonade, energy drinks, ice

tea, juices, nectars);

• Beer;

• Other alcoholic beverages with alcohol

content between 0.5% to 6% (except beer

and wine).

After its initial implementation and transition period,

the Latvian DRS has been extended to cover a

larger segment of the market: in addition to what is

listed above, a deposit is also applied to all alcoholic

beverages (cocktails, syrups and others) in PET

bottles and cans since January 2023

176

Initial results

Given the recent implementation of the system,

results are not yet fully available. However, the initial

data show that since its introduction in February

2022, around 400 million units were collected

through RVMs and manually

177

. A return rate of

85% was achieved for the month of February 2023.

Quantities collected are increasing steadily, reaching

a 2M units daily record in June 2023

178

. The current

expectation for the end of rst year’s average is

expected to be 77% overall return rate

179

. 71% of

the citizens are using the system regularly (at least

once a month)

180

Initial results indicate varying return rates across

types of packaging and beverages. For instance,

while 92% of containers for water have been

returned in the rst nine months of 2023, the rate

goes down to 68% for alcoholic cocktails

181

. In

terms of material, plastic is reported to be only one

not reaching the collection and recycling targets

182

However, these initial indicates will become more

complete after the rst calendar year ends in

December 2023.

Latvia

Start date: 2022

New

deposit system

in Europe since

2019

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Legislation and

implementation

Malta has become the 13

country in Europe with

a DRS system in November 2022. The country

has a particular context. It is a Mediterranean

island with a very high-impact tourism and very

low collection and recycling rates especially, for

plastic packaging

183

. The initiative has a dual

objective, not only to improve the collection

and recycling but also to encourage a cultural

shift among the consumers

184

. HORECA (hotel,

restaurants are catering) industry is the biggest

economic operator therefore is included in the

DRS, as all other economic operators

185

It is managed by a central operator, BCRS Malta

Ltd (Beverage Container Refund Scheme)

186

, a

not-for-prot entity gathering industry association

of beverage producers, importers, retailers.

The system covers single-use plastic (PET) and

glass bottles, aluminium and steel cans with a

capacity of 0.1 to 3L. The following drinks are

included: water and avoured water; carbonated

and non-carbonated soft drinks; ciders, beers

and other malt beverages; ready to drink coee;

avoured alcoholic beverages having an alcoholic

content level which does not exceed 5% and

dilutables

187

. Dairy products, juice and nectars,

wines and spirits, beverages in carton, pouches

and HDPE and drinks with alcohol concentration

over 5% are excluded from the system

188

A standard deposit fee of EUR 0.10 applies to all

types and sizes.

No results are available on system results yet,

but the 100 millionth beverage container was

deposited to a RVM in June 2023

189

Malta

Start date: 2022

New

deposit system

in Europe since

2019

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Legislation and

implementation

As this report was in nal stages of publication,

Romania became the 14

country in the EU to

launch a deposit system for single use beverage

containers

190

. The legislative framework for the

deposit system was nalised in 2021, namely

the Government Decision No. 1074/2021 on the

establishment of a deposit-return system on single-

use packaging (GD 1074/2021)

191

The sheer size of the deposit system makes it an

interesting case: upon introduction, it has become

the second largest in the EU, only second to

Germany and the largest integrated system in the

world

192

. Through its 80 000 collection points, it

is expected to handle around 7 billion beverage

packaging units annually

193

The deposit system is hailed as ‘the largest

circular economy project in Romania’

194

by its own

administrator. It is intended to increase the current

low collection and recycling rates (around 13%) for

relevant packaging

195

. The set target for 2024 is

65%. It will also contribute to the recycling rates for

glass, metal and plastic.

The system is centralised and operated by the

not-for-prot RetuRO

196

. RetuRO’s members are

three private companies (beverage producers and

retailers) and a public shareholder (Romanian

Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forestry)

197

The system covers single-use plastic, metal and

glass beverage containers between 0.1 and 3L,

with a xed fee of RON 0.5 (app. EUR 0.11)

198199

The deposit covers all drinks except milk in glass

containers. The beverage containers will be labelled

in a standardised way and can be returned to any

retail point. All retailers above 200 sqm size are

obliged to organise their own return point, while

the smaller ones can co-organise with others of the

same size

200

. The return points can not be further

than 150 m to the sale points

201

Romania

Start date: 2023

New

deposit system

in Europe since

2019

Reusable beverage containers

An important but (often) overlooked

dimension of deposit systems

Section 3

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

The experience from these countries oers

useful insights for the future policy making.

The rst is that deposit systems alone do not

necessarily mean a support for reusable beverage

packaging. Even deliberate policy interventions

seem insucient. Germany, where the policy is

explicitly linked to reusables, oers a striking

example. The Packaging Act (VerpackG) sets a

target of 70% market share for reusable packaging

(Mehrwegverpackungen-MW). This is also reected

in the way the deposit fees are set, creating an

advantage for the latter (with lower deposit fees

for reusable glass). However, the evolving market

composition shows that these measures are not

enough to reverse the trend. The estimated market

share is much lower than the target, at 43.1% in

2020 (of the beverage packaging covered by DRS).

This is a slight improvement from last year (41.8%)

but overall the share of reusable packaging has

been in decline since 2007.

In Denmark there is a similar situation. The

market share for the reusable bottles has been

dwindling since 2002: it was 85% in 2005

207

, going

down to 16% in 2017 and nally to 7% in 2021

208

These observations are consistent with the global

trends: according to the OECD, annual sales of

single-use beverage containers more than doubled

(60% increase) and sales of reusable containers

declined almost by half (39%)

209

In Lithuania, the integration of both systems

(single-use and reusables) is considered important

to avoid creating a disadvantage for the reusables

and to maximise convenience for the consumers.

However, there too, the market share of reusable

glass bottles is in decline. The sale volumes have

declined from 240M units in 2007 to 61M in 2019

210

Reusable beverage pakaging has a long-history and has an important role to play for

circularity transition. It is therefore important to explore its role within the deposit systems,

which currently remains untapped. There are close connections between the two concepts.

Historically speaking, deposit systems that preceded the modern versions were put in place

for reusable glass bottles. From a practical point of view, deposit systems rely on the physical

movement of containers between retailers, consumers, and producers, which constitutes the

backbone of reuse/rell systems

202

. From a policy perspective, when circularity and waste

hierarchy objectives are considered, reuse should be part of the discussion. When all these

connections are considered, deposit systems seem to be the logical starting point to explore

the potentials of reusable beverage packaging.

However, at the moment, deposit systems are mostly seen as instruments to increase

recycling, without integrating the reuse dimension. Some even argue that the entire

conception of EPR and DRS in the EU has been to maximize recycling based on use and

throw model, which is at odds with the concept of reuse in particular and circular economy in

general

203

. Examples from MS level also reect similar choices: for instance, in Finland, tax on

single-use beverage containers was lifted in 2008, eectively removing the cost advantage of

reusable bottles, therefore further encouraging the shift to single use containers

204

However, some exceptions exist in the EU where the deposit system incorporates an

element of reuse, albeit under dierent forms. In Germany the reusable glass bottles

are not within the same deposit and labelling system as one way PET bottles and cans.

However, their market shares are closely monitored, and reusables are an inherent part of

the policy framework. In Denmark, the administration of both single-use and reusables are

within the mandate of Danskreturnsystem, but the latter is not involved in the organisational

management of the reusable bottles

205

. Market shares are nevertheless monitored, and the

consumer perceives the systems as one. In Lithuania the previous system for reusable glass

bottles is merged with the one-way system in operational terms, even though reusable ows

are managed by another entity (DESA). To the consumer, there are no dierence in labels or

deposit fee

206

. In Estonia and Latvia, reusable glass bottles are part of the same system.

Deposit systems are not enough to

encourage reuse

Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Not all materials and beverages are made

equal when it comes to reusable packaging

Due to the design of the policy, some of these

countries have data on dierent aspects of reusable

beverage packaging, oering useful insights. These

show that dierent types of drinks and containers

might be more suited to reusable packaging

than single-use and vice versa. For instance, the

German Environment Agency publishes yearly

reports about the consumption pattens broken

down by type (single-use or reusable), material of

packaging (metal, glass or plastic) and beverage

type (beer, water etc)

212

. It is possible to observe

a decline in bottled water consumption (due to

increase in tap water consumption) or a sharp

decline in beer consumption due to pandemic-

related bar/restaurant closures

213

. The market

share for the reusables varies depending on the

beverage (see below) For instance, beer is the only

beverage where the 70% target is met with a high

share of reusables (79% in 2020).

Figure 13 Shares of packaging in the consumption of beverages with deposit 2020 (source: German Env. Agency, Yearly

survey on beverage consumption)

Figure 12 Market shares of packaging types within the DRS (source: Umweltbundesamt, compiled from yearly

reports)

211

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

One way+ sustainable packaging aggragated Reusable Packaging Reusable target

43,1%

79,0%

42,5%

21,1%

4,1%

2,1%

0,2%

6,1%

48,8%

6,2%

57,2%

64,8%

95,2%

5,7%

13,9%

7,8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All drinks with deposit

Beer

Mineral waters

Soft drinks

Mixed alcoholic drinks

Reusable total Beverage carton, pouches One-way plastic bottles Cans Other one-way

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Consumer convenience

is important

In many of these systems the consumer does not

perceive a dierence between reusable and single

use beverage packaging, and this is considered

important for the convenience. The key is to

avoid discouraging the use of reusable bottles

(for instance the consumer can return everything

to the same collection point, therefore does not

have to make two separate trips). This is the case

in Lithuania and Denmark where operational

and administrative dierence exist between the

two systems but does not impact the customer.

In Latvia, one of the newest systems, also

incorporates reusable glass bottles, however the

system makes a dierence between standard-

shape reusable glass bottles and specic designs.

While the former is incorporated in the system

both in terms of admin and logistics, the specic

design glass bottles are collected by the producers

themselves. For 2023, 27% of all deposit packaging

put on the market is glass and within that 67% is

reusable glass (shared between 52% standard

shape and 15% unique design)

214

Holistic approaches and

a better understanding

of the relationship

between the reusables

and deposit systems

are needed

The few MS currently integrating some form of

reuse in their deposit systems oer valuable

observations for future policy. They might help

us to understand what works and what does not,

or like in the case of Germany, they might help

determining which beverage categories might be

more suitable for reusable containers from the

consumer perspective. The experience also shows

that it will take more than convenience to encourage

the uptake of reusable bottles. Holistic approaches

are needed, including many elements from the

current systems combined with others, such as

reuse targets

215

, convenient take back systems for

reusables or dierentiated deposit fees. This holistic

approach should also be applied when it comes to

making a choice between single-use and reusable

containers from a life-cycle analysis perspective,

taking into account many dimensions from GHG

emissions to toxicity. Deepening our understanding

about these issues requires more research, which

can be built on the already existing, very valuable

experiences on the ground.

Section 4

The big picture:

role of DRS in managing

(some of) our waste

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

While discussing its organisational and operational details, it is easy to forget the ultimate

objective of a policy instrument. Deposit systems, like any other policy intervention on

resource management, are a tool for maximising the sustainable use of our resources

and consequently, protecting our health and the environment. They achieve these general

objectives through a series of measures and responsibilities distributed among dierence

actors. These have inter-dependencies and operate in a complex ecosystem. Therefore, like

any other policy instrument, they have their limits, either inherently or due to structural factors

in which they operate. It is important to remember these so that measures to complement

and improve deposit systems can be designed and implemented.

In this section we look at the potential and limitations of deposit systems within the bigger

picture of waste management and circular economy. We try to revisit main questions around

deposits systems such as their impact on recycling rates, recycled content, eco-design and

littering.

DRS helps reducing litter, therefore limits

environmental pollution but more data is

needed

Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

One of the main arguments for introducing a DRS is

its eciency in reducing litter. The assumption is that

by providing an economic incentive to bring back the

beverage containers, DRS can directly contribute

to reducing of quantities left in the environment

216

Evidence from real life applications supports this

claim. OECD’s work on DRS mentions a series of

compelling examples from around the globe: South

Australia, Ecuador, US, Canada, Germany and

Denmark where impact is documented

217

. In The

Netherlands, as indicated above, extension of the

deposit system to small bottles seems to reduce

their occurrence in litter. In another example from

Estonia, a clean-up campaign organised before

the introduction of DRS found that 80% of the litter

was composed of beverage containers. Their share

dropped to 10% two years later after the DRS was

introduced

218

The cases mentioned above constitute rare

examples of quantication of direct impact. This

is mainly because primary data on litter (eld

surveys) with regular monitoring is not common.

Where such surveys exist, they are usually under

the form of one-o cleaning campaigns or similar.

They might focus on particular spaces (e.g beaches,

highways) therefore might analyse entirely dierent

samples, leading to dierent results. Furthermore,

each context is dierent (e.g consumption and

mobility habits, cultural dierences, population

density), which makes comparisons dicult. Partial

information available from multiple countries is an

example in point. A 2020 report from Keep Britain

Tidy states that 43% of the litter (by volume) found

in England is small plastic bottles and cans

219

. In

Northern Ireland the latest litter composition survey

states that there are 12M items in the streets in

Northern Ireland at any given time, of which 10%

made of non-alcoholic drink cans with another 10%

distributed among non-alcoholic bottle products,

cans with alcoholic products and alcohol bottle

products

220

. In Wallonia, a similar exercise found

that by weight, cans made 7% of litter (2% per

unit) and 12% were plastic beverage packaging

normally destined for separate waste collection

(2% per unit)

221

. Some surveys also look at volume

comparisons for litter: in the UK, cigarette buts

constitute the item which is found most frequently

(66% of total), however by volume, non-alcoholic

small plastic bottles and cans represent 24% and

19% of the total respectively. Another 7% if made of

cans containing alcoholic drinks

222

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

This has been documented in many cases,

especially where before/after comparisons are

available from countries which introduced a

deposit system. Numerous examples can be cited:

In Europe, collection rate for PET bottles under

DRS is estimated to be twice as high compared

to without DRS (99% to 48%)

223

. In Lithuania, the

collection rates of PET bottles and cans increased

from 34% in 2016 to 92% within two years after the

introduction of DRS

224

. In Ecuador, a deposit fee of

USD 0.02 on PET bottles improved their recycling

rate from 30% to 80% in one year

225

. In the US,

recycling rates for beverage containers that fall

under DRS is higher when compared to kerbside

collection up to around 30% for aluminium cans

226

Available evidence shows that DRS increases

separately collection and recycling of beverage

packaging that falls under its scope

Available evidence

shows that DRS leads

to higher quality

recyclate therefore

enables higher

recycled content for

beverage containers

Due to its organisational structure and well-dened

scope, deposit systems collect similar type of

containers that are suitable for food-contact, isolated

from other packaging types. This aspect is a

frequently mentioned advantage of deposit systems.

However, it will become even more important for

the upcoming mandatory recycling content targets,

especially for PET bottles

227

. Access to high-quality,

uncontaminated material for close-loop recycling

is becoming an urgent need and a pre-condition to

achieve circularity for the food packaging sector.

This has been exacerbated due to competition

from other users (the most important being textile

and automotive sector)

228

. Therefore, DRS oers a

partial solution, at least by increasing the amount of

uncontaminated, high-grade materials available.

While circularity of plastics has its limits, it has been

suggested that achieving 75% recycled content

for PET is possible through deposit systems

229

Examples from various contexts corroborate these.

For instance, in the US, DRS achieves a plastic

recycling process with much less loss, compared to

other systems which reports 32% loss at processing

facilities

230

. In Norway, the system is capable of

securing a ‘steady supply of recyclables with a high

yield and required quality’ both for aluminium

231

and

plastics

232

DRS has a positive

impact on some

aspects of eco-design

Multiple sources argue that DRS can have a positive

impact on product-design

233

. This is true to some

extent: by using producer fees calibrated to dierent

material types, weight or other aspects, deposit

systems (or EPR systems in general) can inuence

the producer choice. In the EU, it is reported that

producer fee modulation based on weight led to

a drastic decrease in the average weight of PET

bottles between 1990 and 2013, from 24 to 9.5

grammes

234

. In Norway, design of bottles is a pre-

condition to participation to DRS

235

and participation

fees for producers are linked to recyclability or other

criteria such as excessive packaging

236

. In Sweden,

higher fees are applied to coloured PET bottles

which are more complex to recycle. This might

partially explain their smaller market presence

237

However, when considered from a wider

‘sustainability’ perspective, the impact of DRS

needs to be nuanced and discussed carefully

not to overemphasise recyclability. This issue

has been raised also by several stakeholders

during the consultations on PPWD proposal’

impact assessment. They argued that the focus

was too much on recyclability through ‘Design for

Recyclability’ approach which is not equivalent to

environmentally sustainable design

238

. Indeed, the

latter is a much more complex and multi-faceted

concept, trying to joggle many aspects from water

and energy savings, emission reduction to non-

toxicity. This links back to the holistic approaches,

which would prevent to pursue false solutions, for

instance designing a lightweight packaging but

using highly toxic chemicals. As explained in section

3, the discussion on sustainability should also cover

reusables and incorporate the complexity that exist

between the trade-os of each policy choice.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Limitations of DRS

in ﬁxing our waste

problem

It is important to have a clear understanding of the

limitations of deposit systems. This is not to say

we do not need them, but to identify how they can

be improved, and which other policy instruments

are needed to oer a more eective solutions to

complex issues regarding waste management.

Figure 14 Streams and sectors used to build Drinks Container put on

the market (image taken from WRAP, Drinks Recycling on the go

239

)

The rst key point is that deposit systems address

a sub-section of packaging materials and types.

This means, even when they are 100% eective,

their overall impact on waste management and

litter will depend on the share they represent

within the total packaging materials in circulation.

For instance, in its most common form, DRS

currently addresses single-use beverage packaging

containers of certain size, all intended for end-user

consumption. These vary between 0.1L to 3 or 5L

volume containers. These containers are made of

dierent materials, including plastic (mostly PET),

aluminium or sometimes metal and glass. In order

to understand the full impact, it is essential to know

the share these materials represent within the total

amounts of packaging and materials in circulation.

However, this information is not straightforward, only

some estimations and partial data are available.

For plastics, the following can be said of plastics in

general and PET bottles in particular:

• Packaging (all packaging) is the biggest user

within the plastics industry, with 44% of total

amount by application globally and 39% in

the EU

240

• PET constitutes around 6.3% of the entire

plastic production (globally) and 7.9% in the

241

• On the other hand, PET is the most

important material for packaging as 97%

of the PET used in the EU is for packaging

applications. And in this, 64% is for beverage

bottles)

242

• 92% of PET bottles are used for beverage

applications (92%)

243

For aluminium, according to the industry

association, up to 50 billion aluminium cans

are consumed every year in the EU, with 76%

recycled

244

. Overall, nished products containing

aluminium in the EU was estimated around 20% of

consumption in the EU

245

Data at MS level is equally hard to nd for each

country. For instance, the graphic below, taken

from a WRAP report

246

illustrates the composition of

drink containers market, only focusing on beverage

packaging (thus a more limited scope that what is

discussed above) in the UK.

As such, beverage containers that fall under

DRS constitute a limited share of the whole

packaging market and the spectrum of materials

used to produce packaging. The picture is further

complicated with the fact that scope for each DRS

is dierent in each country, with dierent market

compositions for materials as well as consumption

habits. As a consequence, impact of DRS might be

amplied or undermined in each context. On the

other hand, it is important to remember that DRS

targets beverage containers that are more likely to

be thrown away (e.g consumed on the go) and a big

share of consumer beverage packaging, therefore

its impact can be greater in terms of littering. As

such, they present an important but a partial solution

to the waste and litter problem.

By deﬁnition, deposit

systems target a

speciﬁc type of

material and products

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Separate collection

of materials is the

ﬁrst steps of a circular

system but does not

guarantee it

Although DRS can ensure separate collection

of uncontaminated material, it cannot guarantee

circularity on its own. Separate collection is only

one step among others. A well-functioning, resilient

system also needs to make sure that there is

enough capacity for sorting and recycling. For

instance, a recent Eunomia report estimates that

washing and recycling facilities for PET are running

at 87% capacity in the EU

247

. To be able to recycle

the quantities collected to reach the 90% target for

PET bottles, the European countries

248

will need to

triple its recycling capacity

249

. This point requires

particular attention since many actors will have to

work together both national and internationally to

accommodate this demand, which is certainly a

much wider issue than deposit systems.

A well-functioning

secondary materials

market requires

more than separate

collection and

recycling

On their own, neither separate collection nor

recycling can lead to a circular system. A fully

circular economy needs a predictable, stable

market with sucient supply of and demand for

secondary materials

250

. At the moment it does not

seem to be the case, especially for recycled PET. In

parallel to the inadequate recycling capacity, there

is also a mismatch between supply and demand.

This creates volatile markets where even limited

increases in supply or demand lead to considerable

price changes. This makes it dicult to make long-

term plans for both suppliers and buyers

251

. As such,

DRS is part of the solution however it needs to be

considered within the wider context and supported

by other policy measures to be fully eective.

Deposit systems

should address

higher levels of waste

hierarchy

Another often overlooked issue is that deposit

systems do not necessarily address higher levels

of waste hierarchy, particularly waste prevention.

A truly circular economy goes further than merely

managing the increasing amounts of waste: it

should prevent it from happening in the rst place.

One of the most powerful approaches to waste

prevention is reuse. Thus, deposit systems heavily

focusing only recycling are not designed to achieve

circularity in its true sense. As already discussed

in section 3, this is the case for most of the current

systems in the EU, with little or no consideration for

reuse. In its current conception, DRS will continue

to have a limited impact in minimising waste,

especially in the current context of booming demand

for single-use packaging.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

EPR schemes and

deposit systems: a

complex relationship

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and

deposit systems are built on the same principle.

They both make the producers and/or sellers (either

partially or fully) responsible for the management

their products once they reach end of life stage.

They both encourage separate collection of waste

streams and necessitate collaboration of diverse

stakeholders from businesses to consumers.

DRS has been considered a sub-category of

EPR

252

or a means to achieve extended producer

responsibility

253

At the same time, there are important dierences

between the two concepts' design and

implementation. To begin with, DRS currently

targets a sub-group of beverage containers whereas

EPR can be applied to a wider range of products

from textiles to electronics. Further, deposit systems

engage the consumer more directly by placing a fee

on the purchased product which is not the case for

EPR systems.

The report from OECD remains the most important

comprehensive study on the relationship between

the two instruments. Based on this report and a

limited number of other research, several factors

can be identied, both positive and negative:

• There are potential conicts between

an already established EPR scheme

for packaging and a DRS system to be

introduced. This has been linked to dierent

organisational structures: if the EPR scheme

is collecting packaging through kerbside

collection, a DRS system on top of this would

create a parallel system via return to retail.

This has multiple implications, including

conict of interest between parties involved.

How dierent actors will be impacted will

depend on the existing structures and roles

both nancial and operational and value of

the material collected

254

• For instance, DRS is targeting high-value

material which would be collected through an

EPR scheme. Diverting the quantities from

kerbside collection to return to retail (DRS)

would lead to loss of material revenues

for the PRO (producer responsibility

organisation) already nancing the kerbside

collection. A notable example is Germany:

after the introduction of DRS in 2002, the

already existing ‘dual system’ registered a

loss of 400 000 tonnes of recyclable material

to the new system, due to shifting quantities

from one system to the other and a 13%

loss in revenues

255

. This can also apply to

municipalities who would otherwise retain

the material ownership.

• Introducing a DRS in a context where EPR

already exists might lead to additional

administrative burden for the packaging

producers. For instance, producers of

multiple types of packaging might need to

report to EPR and DRS separately

256

• Another point of conict is the reuse and

recycle ambitions – usually EPR schemes

are designed towards recycling with few

exceptions including reuse targets. DRS

might emphasise reuse, which might create

policy incoherence, in terms of waste

hierarchy and priorities

257

• It has been suggested that these conicts

tend to be emphasised when DRS is

introduced after an EPR scheme

258

The latest point deserves particular attention in the

current context in the EU. At the time of writing,

almost all MS have an EPR system in place for

packaging. This means countries who are willing to

introduce a deposit system might face challenges.

It also is worth noting that only few countries have

both systems for the same sector. Germany and

The Netherlands are notable examples where both

systems run in parallel successfully. In the case

study on Belgium that will be published in the very

near future, this issue is discussed in detail

259

On the other hand, if designed properly in a

coherent way, both EPR and DRS schemes have

the potential to reinforce and complement each

other

260

. Complementarities are mostly related

to the additional ‘push’ that the DRS brings to the

results of EPR schemes in terms of higher collection

and recycling rates. Further, DRS can contribute to

littering and shaping consumer behaviour in a more

eective way then EPR schemes

261

. The higher

recycling rates and quality can be benecial for the

entire supply chain, especially where same actors

are responsible for both. Additionally, since DRS

facilitates the movement of beverage packaging

between consumers and collection points

262

, it

lays the groundwork for future policies relying on

the same habits. This can be useful in the case of

reusable bottles, but it can also be benecial for

other products or materials. A number of solutions

to the incompatibility issues between EPR and DRS

can be summarised as below:

• Clearly dening the scope of DRS which will

function within an EPR system might prevent

confusion both within the industry and

consumers

263

;

• Integrating reuse targets within the DRS will

help incentivising it oering a counter-weight

within a system which encourages recycling

before all

264

;

• DRS and EPR within the same sector should

be introduced at the same time, or DRS

should precede the EPR system

265266

Section 5

A meta-discussion on DRS:

recommendations for

future research

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Description MS

Archetype A

operator-closing

mode

The DRS operator collects the empty containers brought back by the consumer

to the retailers and transports them to the sorting/recycling centre. Operator is

responsible for their recycling. Various nancial arrangements are possible but

producers bear the cost burden.

EE, DK,

FI, HR,

LT, NO,

Archetype B

retailer-closing

mode

Retailers are responsible for the transport of the empty containers and their

recycling. Dierent cost/revenue distribution to Archetype A, mainly retailers

bearing the costs.

Archetype C

producer-closing

mode

Producers keep the materials, instead of the operator (A) or retailers (B). They

need to organise the process of collection from the return points.

Unlike A and B, the costs burden is split between the retailers and producers.

Archetype D

consumer-closing

mode

Consumer returns the empty beverage containers directly to the DRS operator;

retailers are not involved.

Table 5 Conceptual framework developped by Calebrese et al, as an example of comparative analysis of deposit systems

A comparative

perspective on DRS is

very limited and needs

to be further explored

Although several studies provide detailed

descriptions of the DRS across countries, few of

them focus on similarities and dierences between

them from a conceptual perspective. This is

partially because each is unique in some ways

(e.g dierent legislative frameworks, cultures and

material conditions). However, comparative analysis

of packaging waste management is needed

267

, so

is a conceptual framework for DRS which could

be applied to dierent contexts

268

. This will allow

benchmarking to design better t systems to

dierent contexts.

During our research we identied one such study

which provides a useful theoretical framework to

analyse and categorize dierent deposit systems.

Using archetypes, Calabrese et al.

269

provides a

grouping of existing systems under four categories.

Each archetype is based on the actor which closes

the loop by transporting the empty items collected

to the recycling facility (or washing facility for

reusables). These four archetypes are explored

through building blocks, namely actors, the cost

and revenues for each other as well as money-

material ows

270

. The table below recapitulates

the archetypes and their main features. Note that

this conceptualisation goes beyond the descriptive

elements, which are already used in many sources

to compare available systems. These include, for

instance, whether the system is centralised or not,

whether the deposit fees are xed or not and many

other features of the systems or who is paying the

handling fees to whom. It is merely an example

of how dierent systems can be conceptualised

as many other approaches can be developed and

used.

More detailed and

publicly available data

is needed

The primary source of information for deposit

systems is the relevant organisation in each

Member State, but it is not always possible to

nd ocial information on the system and its

performance. Ideally, this information should

be provided from a single source annually and

completed by other information such as legal

framework, other activities and latest developments.

Thus, the existence of a central operator helps in

providing this type of information. Good examples

include Lithuania, Norway, Denmark, Estonia,

and Croatia where yearly reports from the system

operator clearly present the results in a standardised

way, allowing comparison across time. In Sweden,

data is partially available from the DRS operator’s

website, with additional information from Statistics

Sweden. On the other hand, detailed data is not

available or can only be obtained through contacting

the organisation (Iceland, The Netherlands). In

countries where the system is not centralised,

namely Finland and Germany, nding information

on the system performance is more dicult, if not

impossible. Addressing these information gaps

where possible would improve transparency and

help all interested parties (e.g researchers, policy

makers, citizens or NGOs) to easily access the

information they need in a reliable way.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

The interaction

between the EPR

schemes and DRS

should be further

explored

As mentioned in section 4, it is important to

understand the relationship between the DRS

and EPR. Especially when EPR schemes target

packaging, it is important for the policy makers as

well as the industry to understand how DRS and

EPR may complete or compete with each other. As

the case study in Belgium suggests

271

, complications

are to be expected when both systems are to be

run in parallel and a deposit system is introduced

following a well-established EPR system. However,

this complex relationship remains understudied. The

only comprehensive work in this regard remains the

OECD’s report, exploring the interplay between the

two instruments which is mentioned in section 4

272

While this report oers a very useful overview of the

matter, more up to date and in-depth information will

be useful, for instance focusing on dierent MS.

It is important to

understand the role of

DRS within the overall

packaging waste

management

The positive impact of DRS is well documented.

However, it has to be put in larger context in order

to understand the limitations of deposit systems in

addressing our waste problem. As also discussed in

section 4, more information is needed to establish

the real impact of deposit systems in increasing

circularity of packaging in general and reducing

litter. The main component that is missing is what

beverage packaging subject to DRS represents

within the overall packaging ows and litter found in

the environment. Both will be context-dependant. It

is therefore important to develop an understanding

of these elements in dierent countries. Findings

suggest that more research is needed in this area

and even in cases where there is a serious debate

on deposit systems (e.g Belgium) some of these

elements are missing.

A more granular

understanding of

deposit systems

at product level is

needed

The ndings suggest that not all materials are equal

when it comes to DRS. As discussed in several

sections of this report, policy choices regarding

re-use, rell, or simply what type of refund system

will be optimal depends on the material targeted.

What is preferable for glass might not be the best

solution for aluminium beverage packaging. A

specic approach to take-back could work well with

light materials like plastic but might create issues

when glass is involved. Such granularity is mostly

absent from the discussions which treat DRS as

a blanket measure and a binary ‘DRS or not DRS’

choice without going into further detail. Future

research should aim at dierentiating between

the materials and to identify optimal solutions for

dierent streams. This would help to improve the

existing systems and help the countries planning to

introduce deposit systems in the future.

As more and more

countries implement

DRS, our knowledge

on it and its functions

become more reﬁned,

allowing us to perfect

the systems

Deposit systems are constantly evolving, allowing

the newer and future systems to incorporate tried

and tested elements of the forerunners. Even

though context-specic approaches are necessary,

and one-size ts all solutions are to be avoided,

lessons learned in one country can be very valuable

in another one. As more and more countries

implement deposit systems, our knowledge on

their dierent aspects, practical experience and

impacts increases. This, in turn, allows more rened

and evidence-based policy making. With the ever-

growing information, it will be possible to have better

designed systems, with clearer understanding of

risks and challenges under dierent circumstances.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

• The global context is pushing policy

makers at all governance levels to pursue

ever more ambitious waste prevention

and management policies. LRAs are at the

forefront of these challenges. Policy tools like

deposit systems are proving themselves useful

to address some of these. This is increasingly

recognised in the EU legislation as well, for

instance the revision of the Packaging and

Packaging Waste Directive.

• At the same time, the number of countries

with a deposit system is constantly

growing. This allows a more rened

understanding on their risks and challenges.

It will help us to design better systems in the

future.

• At the moment, deposit system remains

largely focused on recycling single-

use beverage packaging. Few countries

incorporate reusables in their deposit system.

Their experience shows that a policy mix is

needed to overcome the challenges of

re-integrating reusable beverage packaging

into the markets. Further, a discussion is

needed on the role of deposit systems to

prevent waste in the rst place, through

encouraging reusable beverage packaging.

• The relationship between the EPR and DRS

remains under-explored. Available evidence

from a limited number of studies suggest that

depending on the context, there might be

complementarities or conict between the two

systems. This seems to be the case especially

when an EPR scheme predates a deposit

system. More research would be benecial for

the EU context, since all the MS have an EPR

scheme in place for packaging and many of

those might be introducing a deposit system in

the future.

• Deposit systems have a very important

role to play in increasing collection and

recycling rates, addressing litter and

making the design of certain products

more sustainable. They also have positive

impacts on consumer behaviour and encourage

cooperation between multiple stakeholders.

As such, they also contribute to preparing the

ground for other policy instruments which might

need such governance structures.

• However, they cannot be a standard, one-

size solution to overcome the challenges

across dierent contexts. They cannot solve

the waste problem on their own, nor guarantee

circularity. They need to be combined with

other instruments in order to provide a holistic

approach. This is true for all positive aspects

mentioned in this report from collection to

recycling, from reuse to sustainable design and

reducing litter.

• There are shortages in our knowledge to

establish the impacts and limitations of

deposit systems. While the positive impacts

of deposit systems are documented, the

quantication and magnitude of these are less

explored. This is especially the case when one

tries to establish the relationship between the

shares of beverage packaging falling under a

deposit system and overall packaging materials

in circulation in each country. The same goes

for the occurrence of such beverage packaging

in litter.

• Robust, transparent and veriable data is

at the core of the debate on DRS, especially

when dierent policy options are assessed

to nd the best policy option.

The eectiveness of deposit systems will

largely depend on the context in which they

operate. They might be extremely valuable

in a country where management of beverage

packaging waste is only at the beginning stage.

However, they might not be the best solution

in another one, where the existing system is

delivering better results. To make the distinction

between dierent cases and to avoid ‘one

size ts all’ solutions, each context should

be analysed in-depth with transparent and

independent information. It is therefore very

important to continue the debate on deposit

systems building on reliable and veried data.

This report started o as an update of the 2019 ACR+ publication on the deposit return systems for single-

use beverage containers but quickly evolved into something bigger. The iterative nature of research led us

to explore aspects that were not initially included in the plan. This in turn led to new insights but opened

other questions. It is therefore a start, rather than a nished product.

A series of conclusions can be drawn from dierent sections of this report:

Conclusions

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Endnotes

1. The report is available at: https://www.acrplus.org/images/

technical-reports/2019_ACR_Deposit-refund_systems_in_Eu-

rope_Report.pdf

2. These countries are: EE, DE, DK, FI, HR, IS, NL, NO, SE, LT

3. The European Commission, 2020, Communication A new

Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more com-

petitive Europe, Brussels, 11.3.2020 COM(2020) 98 nal.

Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?u-

ri=COM%3A2020%3A98%3AFIN

4. The European Commission, 2018, Communication to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Euro-

pean Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, COM(2018)

28 nal. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?u-

ri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/

DOC_1&format=PDF

5. The European Commission, 2018, Communication to the

European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Euro-

pean Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, COM(2018)

28 nal. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?u-

ri=cellar:2df5d1d2-fac7-11e7-b8f5-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/

DOC_1&format=PDF

6. D’Alfonso A., EPRS, 2021, Own resources of the European

Union Reforming the EU’s nancing system. Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_

BRI(2018)630265

7. Some provisions are included to avoid excessive payments

from certain Member States.

8. The European Commission, Plastics Own Resource, avai-

lable at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/

eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/revenue/own-re-

sources/plastics-own-resource_en#:~:text=The%20plastics%20

own%20resource%2C%20in,to%20the%20EU%20policy%20

priorities.

9. Article 8 establishes several measures on Extended Pro-

ducer Responsibility schemes, including covering the costs of

clean-up litter and awareness raising measures for balloons,

wet wipes, and tobacco products by end of 2024 respectively

5 January 2023 applying for the latter. Even more extensive

EPR measures are enacted for food containers, packets and

wrappers, cups for beverages, and beverage containers up to

three litres as well as lightweight plastic carrier bags and shing

gear by end of 2024 – by 5 January 2023 for packets and

wrappers (from: https://www.european-bioplastics.org/policy/

single-use-plastics-directive/ )

10. The European Commission, Single-Use Plastics. Available

at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-

plastics_en

11. The European Parliament and the Council, 2019, Direc-

tive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the impact of

certain plastic products on the environment. Available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CE-

LEX:32019L0904&qid=1690184652448

12. The European Parliament and the Council, 2019, Di-

rective (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the impact

of certain plastic products on the environment. Available at:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CE-

LEX:32019L0904&qid=1690184652448

13. The European Commission, 2022, Proposal for a revision of

EU legislation on Packaging and Packaging Waste. Available at:

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-packa-

ging-and-packaging-waste_en

14. The European Commission, 2022, Impact Assessment

Report Accompanying the document’ Proposal for a Regulation

of the European Parliament and the Council on packaging and

packaging waste, amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, and

repealing Directive 94/62/EC Brussels, 30.11.2022 SWD (2022)

384 nal.

15. The European Parliament, 2023, Press Release 22 No-

vember 2023: Parliament adopts revamped rules to reduce,

reuse and recycle packaging. Available at: https://www.europarl.

europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231117IPR12213/parlia-

ment-adopts-revamped-rules-to-reduce-reuse-and-recycle-pac-

kaging

16. The European Commission, 2019, Commission Implemen-

ting Decision (EU) 2019/1004 of 7 June 2019

17. The European Commission, 2023, Identifying Member

States at risk of not meeting the 2025 preparing for re-use and

recycling target for municipal waste, the 2025 recycling target

for packaging waste and the 2035 municipal waste landlling

reduction target. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/le-

gal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0304

18. EEA, 2018, Brieng on Recycling of Municial Waste. Avai-

lable at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2018/resource-ecien-

cy-and-low-carbon-economy/recycling-of-municipal-waste

19. Plastics Europe, 2022, The Circular Economy For Plastics,

A European Overview

20. German Environment Agency, 2023, Verpackungsabfälle.

Available at:

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/ressourcen-abfall/ver-

wertung-entsorgung-ausgewaehlter-abfallarten/verpackungsab-

faelle#eu-vorgaben-zur-verwertung-werden-erhoht

21. EEA, 2021, Early warning assessment related to the 2025

targets for municipal waste and packaging waste: Italy

22. The European Parliament, 2023, Waste management

in the EU: infographic with facts and gures. Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/so-

ciety/20180328STO00751/waste-management-in-the-eu-info-

graphic-with-facts-and-gures

23. The European Parliament, 2023, Press Release 17 January:

‘Waste shipments: MEPs push for tighter EU rules’. Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230113I-

PR66627/waste-shipments-meps-push-for-tighter-eu-

rules#:~:text=With%20the%20adopted%20text%2C%20

MEPs,countries%20would%20also%20be%20prohibited

24. The European Parliament, 2023, Press Release 17 January:

‘Waste shipments: MEPs push for tighter EU rules’. Available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230113I-

PR66627/waste-shipments-meps-push-for-tighter-eu-

rules#:~:text=With%20the%20adopted%20text%2C%20

MEPs,countries%20would%20also%20be%20prohibited

25. Lee Y.N. , 25 January 2019, ‘Malaysia, following in China’s

footsteps, bans imports of plastic waste’, CNBC. Available at:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/climate-change-malaysia-fol-

lowing-china-bans-plastic-waste-imports.html

26. Igini M., 22 February 2023, ‘Thailand Announces Ban on

Plastic Waste Imports by 2025’, EARTH.ORG. Available at:

https://earth.org/thailand-ban-plastic-imports/

27. Gardiner B., 1 August 2023, ‘Indonesia Cracks Down on

the Scourge of Imported Plastic Waste’, Yale Environment 360.

All the online references were accessed in September 2023.

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/plastic-waste-im-

ports-recycling-indonesia

28. United Nations, Basel Convention: Plastic Waste Amend-

ments. Available at: https://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plas-

ticwaste/Amendments/Overview/tabid/8426/Default.aspx

29. Waste Framework Directive: Directive (EU) 2018/851

30. The Council, 1999, Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999

on the landll of waste. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01999L0031-20180704

31. The European Parliament and the Council, 2018, Directive

(EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging

and packaging waste Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.

eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1528981579179&uri=CE-

LEX:32018L0852

32. The European Parliament, Legislative Train Schedule, Revi-

sion of Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste

(REFIT). Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legisla-

tive-train/theme-a-european-green-deal/le-revision-of-packa-

ging-and-packaging-waste-directive-(ret)

33. The European Parliament and the Council, 2023, Propo-

sal for a Regulation Of The European Parliament And Of The

Council on circularity requirements for vehicle design and

on management of end-of-life vehicles, amending Regula-

tions (EU) 2018/858 and 2019/1020 and repealing Directives

2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC, COM(2023) 451 nal. Available

at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-re-

gulation-circularity-requirements-vehicle-design-and-manage-

ment-end-life-vehicles_en

34. The European Parliament and the Council, Article 6 of the

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA-

MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on circularity requirements

for vehicle design and on management of end-of-life vehicles,

amending Regulations (EU) 2018/858 and 2019/1020 and

repealing Directives 2000/53/EC and 2005/64/EC, COM(2023)

451 nal.

35. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Maury, T.,

Tazi, N., Torres De Matos, C. et al., 2023, Towards recycled

plastic content targets in new passenger cars and light com-

mercial vehicles – Technical proposals and analysis of impacts

in the context of the review of the ELV Directive, Publications

Oce of the European Union. Available at: https://data.europa.

eu/doi/10.2838/834615

36. The European Commission, Waste from Electrical and

Electronic Equipment (WEEE). Available at: https://environ-

ment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-electri-

cal-and-electronic-equipment-weee_en

37. The European Council, 2023, Press Release 24 May 2023:

‘Waste shipments: Council ready to start talks with Parlia-

ment’. Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/

press-releases/2023/05/24/waste-shipments-council-ready-to-

start-talks-with-parliament/

38. According to the Eurostat population data, reported as of

January 2022.

39. Buurman R., 12 September 2022, ‘ La course vers la

consigne en Europe’, Recycling Netwerk Benelux, [In French].

Available at: https://recyclingnetwerk.org/fr/2022/09/14/la-

course-vers-la-consigne-des-bouteilles-et-canettes/

40. Suter M., 2019, Beyond PET: An extended DepositReturn

System for plastic packaging in Sweden, A qualitative investiga-

tion of challenges and lessons from future and earlier Depo-

sit-Return Systems. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/

smash/get/diva2:1331032/FULLTEXT01.pdf

41. Suter M., 2019, Beyond PET: An extended DepositReturn

System for plastic packaging in Sweden, A qualitative investiga-

tion of challenges and lessons from future and earlier Depo-

sit-Return Systems. Available at: http://www.diva-portal.org/

smash/get/diva2:1331032/FULLTEXT01.pdf

42. EEA, 2016, Country Factsheet: Sweden Municipal Waste

Management. Available at: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/

etc-ce/products/country-proles-on-the-management-of-munici-

pal-waste-1/sweden_msw_2016.pdf

43. Sveriges RIKSDAG, 2022, Förordning (2022:1274) om

producentansvar för förpackningar, [In Swedish]. Available at:

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/

svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-20221274-om-producen-

tansvar-for_sfs-2022-1274/#K6

44. Pantamera, Om Oss: Vår verksamhet, [In Swedish]. Avai-

lable at: https://pantamera.nu/sv/om-oss/var-verksamhet/

45. Dairy products can be included on a voluntary basis.

46. Reloop, 2022, Global Deposit Book 2022: An Overview

of Deposit Return Systems for Single-Use Beverage Contai-

ners. Available at: https://www.reloopplatform.org/wp-content/

uploads/2023/05/RELOOP_Global_Deposit_Book_11I202.pdf

47. Sveriges RIKSDAG, 2022, Förordning (2022:1274) om

producentansvar för förpackningar, [In Swedish]. Available at:

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/

svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-20221274-om-producen-

tansvar-for_sfs-2022-1274/#K6

48. No Author, 20 October 2022, ‘New EPR regulations in

Sweden’, Recycle Me. Available at: https://recycleme.eco/de/en/

blog/new-epr-regulations-in-sweden/

49. Pantamera, Regulation governs the deposit system.Avai-

lable at: https://pantamera.nu/en/private-citizen/facts--statistics/

regulation-governs-the-deposit-system/

50. Naturvårdsverket, Return deposit system for plastic bottles

and metal cans. Available at: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/

en/guidance/extended-producer-responsibility-epr/return-depo-

sit-system-for-plastic-bottles-and-metal-cans/

51. When beverage packaging included on a voluntary basis

at the moment is excluded from these calculation, the rate is

88,2%.

52. Pantamera, Pantstatistik, [In Swedish]. Available at: https://

pantamera.nu/sv/privatperson/fakta--statistik/pantstatistik/

53. Hedman M.F, 2022, Burn or Return? Evaluating Deposit

Return Systems for Plastic Packaging Waste in Sweden A

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment. Available at: https://kth.

diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1700704/FULLTEXT01.pdf

54. Alþingi, Lög um ráðstafanir gegn umhversmengun af völ-

dum einnota umbúða fyrir drykkjarvörur, [In Icelandic]. Available

at: https://www.althingi.is/lagas/nuna/1989052.html

55. Reloop, 2020, Global Deposit Book 2020. Available at:

https://www.reloopplatform.org/global-deposit-book-2022/

56. Reloop, 2020, Global Deposit Book 2020. Available at:

https://www.reloopplatform.org/global-deposit-book-2022/

57. Endurvinnslan website. Available at: https://endurvinnslan.

is/english/

58. DRS Association Website. Available https://drsassociation.

com/members/

59. Endurvinnslan, Spurningar og svör, [In Icelandic]. Available

at: https://endurvinnslan.is/frodleikur/

60. Palpa, What is Palpa. Available at: https://www.palpa./

beverage-container-recycling/palpa-briey/

61. Finnish Government, 2013, Government Decree on a return

system for beverage containers (526/2013). Available at: https://

nlex./en/laki/kaannokset/2013/en20130526.pdf

62. Finnish Ministry of Environment, Waste Act (646/2011;

amendments up to 494/2022 included). Available at: https://n-

lex./en/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110646.pdf

63. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

64. Deloitte, 2019, Deposit-Refund System (DRS) Facts &

Myths. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/De-

loitte/pl/Documents/Brochures/pl_DRS_Brochure_Deloitte.pdf

65. Palpa, What is Palpa. Available at: https://www.palpa./

beverage-container-recycling/palpa-briey/

66. Palpa, What is Palpa. Available at: https://www.palpa./

beverage-container-recycling/palpa-briey/

67. Palpa Website, More Than Two Billion Beverage Contai-

ners Deposits Are Returned Every Year In Finland. Available at:

https://www.palpa./for-consumers/general/

68. Tax rate is set annually, 2023 rates are available here

69. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022, Depo-

sit-refund systems and the interplay with additional mandatory

extended producer responsibility policies - OECD Environment

Working Paper No. 208

70. Innitum, 2018, Annual Report for 2018. Available at: https://

innitum.no/media/3iln41k2/innitum_annual_report_2018_

spreads.pdf

71. Reloop, 2022, Global Deposit Book 2022. Available at:

https://www.reloopplatform.org/global-deposit-book-2022/

72. Bottle Bill Resource Guide, Website, Norway. Available at:

https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/

worldwide/norway

73. Innitum, 2022, Annual Report for 2022. Available at: https://

innitum.no/media/vanibhxu/innitum_annualreport_2022_

pages.pdf

74. Note that reported rates do not include the quantities col-

lected through kerbside collection and other means. The overall

collection rates exceed 95%, hence the absence of the environ-

mental tax.

75. In calculating the recycling rate, all the collected amount is

added to the additional material recycled from waste processing

(e.g sorting or utilised energy).

76. All the yearly reports in English can be found https://inni-

tum.no/annual-reports/

77. All the yearly reports in English can be found https://inni-

tum.no/annual-reports/

78. Danksretursystem, About us. Available at: https://danskre-

tursystem.dk/en/about-us/

79. EEA, 2022, Early warning assessment related to the 2025

targets for municipal waste and packaging waste

80. Danksretursystem, Website. Available at: https://danskretur-

system.dk/

81. Danksretursystem, 2022, The story of a deposit system for a

circular economy. Available at: https://danskretursystem.dk/app/

uploads/2022/04/DRS_Whitepaper_2022_04_UK-low_nal.pdf

82. Danksretursystem, Deposit Marks and Amounts. Available

at: https://danskretursystem.dk/en/about-deposits/deposit-

marks-and-amounts/

83. Reloop, 2020, Global Deposit Book 2020. Available at:

https://www.reloopplatform.org/global-deposit-book-2022/ and

https://www.reloopplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/

RELOOP_Global_Deposit_Book_11I202.pdf

84. Danksretursystem, 2022, Annual Report (Årsrapport 2022),

[In Danish]. Available at: https://danskretursystem.dk/app/

uploads/2023/03/Aarsrapport-2022.pdf

85. Danksretursystem, 2022, Annual Report (Årsrapport 2022),

[In Danish]. Available at: https://danskretursystem.dk/app/

uploads/2023/03/Aarsrapport-2022.pdf

86. Waste Management World, 6 February 2023, ‘Denmarks

DRS for cans and bottles achieves 100 per cent circula-

rity’. Available at: https://waste-management-world.com/re-

source-use/denmarks-drs-for-cans-and-bottles-achieves-100-

per-cent-circularity/

87. Bottle Bill Resource Guide, Website, Germany. Available at:

https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/

worldwide/germany

88. Act on the Placing on the Market, Take-Back and High-Qua-

lity Recycling of Packaging (Packaging Act - VerpackG) [In

German]. Available at: https://www.buzer.de/VerpackG_Ver-

packungsgesetz.htm

89. Der GrunePunkt, The German Packaging Act – What’s

Particularly Important For Online Retailers. Available at: https://

www.gruener-punkt.de/en/packaging-licensing/packaging-act

90. DPG Website: Über die DPG [In German]. Available at:

https://dpg-pfandsystem.de/index.php/de/das-einwegpfandsys-

tem/ueber-die-dpg.html

91. Tomra, 2023, Deposit return scheme in Germany: the

world’s highest-performing drink container recycling system.

Available at: https://www.tomra.com/en/reverse-vending/me-

dia-center/feature-articles/germany-deposit-return-scheme

92. German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature

Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. Avai-

lable at: https://www.bmuv.de/en/topics/water-management/

circular-economy-overview/overview-types-of-waste-and-waste-

ows/packaging-waste

93. Ibid.

94. Stiftung Zentrale Stelle Verpackung Register, Erweiterte

Pfandpicht für Einweggetränkeverpackungen ab dem 1. Ja-

nuar 2022, [In German]. Available at: https://www.verpackungs-

Erweiterte_Pfandpicht_ab_Januar_2022.pdf

95. DPG, Expansion of the deposit obligation as of 1 January

2022. Available at: DPG Deutsche Pfandsystem GmbH - Expan-

sion of deposit obligation as of 1 January 2022 (dpg-pfandsys-

tem.de)

96. Fragen und Antworten: Verpackungen und Ver-

packungsabfälle [In German]. Available at: https://www.

umweltbundesamt.de/themen/abfall-ressourcen/produk-

tverantwortung-in-der-abfallwirtschaft/verpackungen/

fragen-antworten-verpackungen-verpackungsabfaelle#56-

warum-gibt-es-getrankeverpackungen-auf-die-kein-pfand-

erhoben-wird-und-wie-werden-sie-richtig-entsorgt

97.Stiftung Zentrale Stelle Verpackung Register, Erweiterte

Pfandpicht für Einweggetränkeverpackungen ab dem 1. Ja-

nuar 2022, [In German]. Available at: https://www.verpackungs-

Erweiterte_Pfandpicht_ab_Januar_2022.pdf

98. Beverages up to 3L for single-use and up to 10L for reu-

sable packaging and for drinks that fall under the DRS: water,

beer, soft-drinks, mixed alcoholic drinks as well bag-in-box

containers, large bottles, large cans, and canisters as well as

small beer kegs for reusables.

99. This was conrmed by the representative of DPG by mail.

100. Studies in German can be consulted on the website of Ge-

sellschaft für Verpackungsmarktforschung. Available at: https://

gvmonline.de/informationen/vortraege/

101. BGVZ, Ökologische Ziele, Ressourcen BGVZ, PET-Einwe-

gasche, [In German]. Available at: https://www.bgvz.de/down-

loads/pdfs/Convenience-Ressourcen-BGVZ.pdf

102. FORUM PET, Recycling System, webpage. Available at:

https://www.forum-pet.de/en/recycling-cycle/

103. Senseneo, Detailed overview and results of the current

deposit return scheme implementations in Europe. Available

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

at: https://sensoneo.com/waste-library/deposit-return-sche-

mes-overview-europe/

104. Dutch Central Government, Website for businesses,

Packaging. Available at: https://business.gov.nl/regulation/pac-

kaging/

105. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen and Statiegeld Nederland, 2022,

Policy on Deposit Bottles and Deposit Cans. Available at:

https://www.statiegeldnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/Poli-

cy-on-Deposit-Bottles-and-Deposit-Cans.pdf

106. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen [In Dutch]. Available at: https://

www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/nl/wij-zijn-stichting-afval-

fonds-verpakkingen

107. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, webpage dedicated to Statie-

geld, [In Dutch]. Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkin-

gen.nl/nl/statiegeld

108. Dutch Central Government, Website for businesses,

Packaging. Available at: https://business.gov.nl/regulation/pac-

kaging/

109. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, webpage dedicated to Statie-

geld, [In Dutch]. Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkin-

gen.nl/nl/statiegeld

110. Website of Statiegeld Nederland. Available at: https://www.

statiegeldnederland.nl/

111. Ibid.

112. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen and Statiegeld Nederland, 2022,

Policy on Deposit Bottles and Deposit Cans. Available at:

https://www.statiegeldnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/Poli-

cy-on-Deposit-Bottles-and-Deposit-Cans.pdf

113. Rijkswaterstaat, Cijfers zwerfafval in Nederland, [In Dutch].

Available at: https://zwerfafval.rijkswaterstaat.nl/cijfers/

114. Eco Consult - Groen, Monitoring & Management BV for

Rijkswaterstaat Leefomgeving, 2023, Landelijke zwerfafvalmo-

nitor incl. extra gebiedstypen Jaarrapportage 2022, [In Dutch].

Available at: https://open.rws.nl/open-overheid/onderzoeksrap-

porten/@258335/landelijke-zwerfafvalmonitor-incl-extra/

115. The Government of Netherlands, 3 February 2021,

Can deposit system becomes fact. Available at: https://www.

government.nl/latest/news/2021/02/03/can-deposit-system-be-

comes-fact

116. Ibid.

117. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, Deposit Bottles Return. Available

at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/en/node/390

118. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen and Statiegeld Nederland, 2022,

Policy on Deposit Bottles and Deposit Cans. Available at:

https://www.statiegeldnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/Poli-

cy-on-Deposit-Bottles-and-Deposit-Cans.pdf

119. Personal communication with Statiegeld Nederland.

120. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, 20 June 2022, Landelijk dekkend

innamesysteem statiegeldblikjes per 1 april 2023, (In Dutch).

Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/nl/actueel/

persbericht-reactie-landelijk-dekkend-innamesysteem-sttie-

geldblikjes-1-april-2023

121. Based on weight.

122. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, 2022, Op weg naar fossielvrij

en circulair verpakken Recycling en hergebruik verpakkingen

Nederland 2022. Available here: https://www.afvalfondsverpak-

kingen.nl/sites/default/les/2023-08/Op weg naar fossielvrij en

circulair verpakken.pdf

123. Ibid.

124. Based on units.

125. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, Deposit Bottles Return. Available

at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/en/node/390

126. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, Onze recycleresultaten, [In

Dutch]. Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/nl/

onze-recycleresultaten

127. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, 8 September 2023, Reac-

tie Afvalfonds op waarschuwing van toezichthouder ILT, [In

Dutch]. Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.nl/

nl/actueel/persbericht-reactie-reactie-afvalfonds-op-waar-

schuwing-van-toezichthouder-ilt

128. Govers S., 16 November 2021, ‘Évaluation intermédiaire

du système néerlandais de consigne pour les bouteilles en plas-

tique’, Recycling Network, [In French. Available at: https://recy-

clingnetwerk.org/fr/2021/11/16/evaluation-intermediaire-du-sys-

teme-neerlandais-de-consigne-pour-les-bouteilles-en-plastique/

129. Eco Consult, 2023, Landelijke zwerfafvalmonitor Incl. extra

gebiedstypen Jaarrapport 2022, [In Dutch].Available at: https://

zwerfafval.rijkswaterstaat.nl/cijfers/landelijke-zwerfafvalmoni-

tor-2022-hoeveelheid-jn/@281538/landelijke-zwerfafvalmoni-

tor-jaarrapportage-2022/

130. Ibid.

131. Rijkswaterstaat, Landelijke Zwerfafvalmonitor 2022: hoe-

veelheid jn zwerfafval neemt af [In Dutch]. Available at: https://

zwerfafval.rijkswaterstaat.nl/cijfers/landelijke-zwerfafvalmoni-

tor-2022-hoeveelheid-jn/

132. Afvalfonds Verpakkingen, Collection results plastic drinking

bottles 2022. Available at: https://www.afvalfondsverpakkingen.

nl/en/node/390

133. Riigi Teataja, (Pakendiseadus-PakS)/Packaging

Law- [In Estonian]. Available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/

akt/13328511?leiaKehtiv

134. Riigi Teataja (Pakendiaktsiisi seadus (lühend - PakAS)/

Packaging Excise Duty Act-PakAS) [In Estonian]. Available at:

https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13328507?leiaKehtiv

135. Eesti Pandipakend, 2020, (Majandusaasta Aruanne-An-

nual Financial Report) [in Estonian]. Available at: https://

eestipandipakend.ee/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/EPP-aastaa-

ruanne-2020.pdf

136. ERR News, 22 July, 2021, ‘Wine and spirit bottles can

be recycled from autumn’. Available at: https://news.err.

ee/1608285321/wine-and-spirit-bottles-can-be-recycled-from-

autumn

137. ETO, 2021, Main Changes in the Packaging Act. Available

at: https://www.eto.ee/en/main-changes-in-the-packaging-act/

138. Yearly reports are available at: https://eestipandipakend.

ee/aruanded/

139. Eesti Pandipakend, 2022, Activity Report doe 2021 [in

Estonian]. Available at: EPP-tegevusaruanne-2021.pdf (eesti-

pandipakend.ee)

140. Eesti Pandipakend, 2022, Activity Report doe 2021 [in

Estonian]. Available at: EPP-tegevusaruanne-2021.pdf (eesti-

pandipakend.ee)

141. Compiled from year reports that are available on the

website of Eesti Pandipakend. Available at: https://eestipandi-

pakend.ee/aruanded/

142. Waste Management Act can be consulted at: https://min-

gor.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/UPRAVA-ZA-PROCJENU-UTJE-

CAJA-NA-OKOLIS-ODRZIVO-GOSPODARENJE-OTPADOM/

Sektor%20za%20odr%C5%BEivo%20gospodarenje%20otpa-

dom/WASTE%20MANAGEMENT%20ACT%20(OG%2084_21).

docx

143. The Environmental Protection and Energy Eciency Fund,

Activities of the Fund. Available at: https://www.fzoeu.hr/en/acti-

vities-of-the-fund/1325

144. The Environmental Protection and Energy Eciency Fund,

About Us. Available at: https://www.fzoeu.hr/en/about-us/10

145. Reloop, 2020, Global Deposit Book 2020. Available at:

https://www.reloopplatform.org/global-deposit-book-2022/

146. Hina, 19 November 2022, Croatia to introduce new de-

posit scheme for packaging in 2023, N1. Available at: https://

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

n1info.hr/english/news/croatia-to-introduce-new-deposit-sche-

me-for-packaging-in-2023/

147. Waste Management Act can be consulted https://mingor.

gov.hr/UserDocsImages/UPRAVA-ZA-PROCJENU-UTJE-

CAJA-NA-OKOLIS-ODRZIVO-GOSPODARENJE-OTPADOM/

Sektor%20za%20odr%C5%BEivo%20gospodarenje%20otpa-

dom/WASTE%20MANAGEMENT%20ACT%20(OG%2084_21).

docx

148. Croatian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Develop-

ment, 2023, Report on waste management packaging in the Re-

public of Croatia in 2021, [In Croatian. Available at: https://www.

haop.hr/sites/default/les/uploads/dokumenti/021_otpad/Izvjes-

ca/ostalo/OTP_Izvje%C5%A1%C4%87e_ambala%C5%BEni

otpad_2021_WEB.pdf

149.Croatian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Develop-

ment, 2023, Report on waste management packaging in the

Republic of Croatia in 2020, [In Croatian]. Available at: https://

www.haop.hr/sites/default/les/uploads/dokumenti/021_otpad/

Izvjesca/ostalo/OTP_Izvjesce_ambalazni_2020_WEB_nal.pdf

150. Ibid.

151. Ibid.

152. Parliament of the Lithuanian Republic, 2001, Ocial

Translation of the Law on the Management of Packaging and

Packaging Waste. Available at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/lega-

lAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.161216?jfwid

153. https://grazintiverta.lt/verslui

154. USAD Website, Deposit [In Lithuanian]. Available at:

https://grazintiverta.lt/sistema/uzstatas/30

155. All yearly reports are available at: https://grazintiverta.lt/

dokumentai/ataskaitos/144/2023-05

156. USAD, 2022, Užstato už vienkartines pakuotes sistemos

nansavimo schemos 2022-2024 m. vykdymo metinė ataskaita

už 2022 metus [In Lithuanian]

157. Presentation of Saulius Galadauskas, President of Lithua-

nian Brewers Association Chairman of the Board of USAD (De-

posit System Administrator for single-use packaging). Available

at: https://www.zazemiata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/

DRS-Lithuania.pdf

158. Presentation of Saulius Galadauskas, President of Lithua-

nian Brewers Association Chairman of the Board of USAD (De-

posit System Administrator for single-use packaging). Available

at: https://www.zazemiata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/

DRS-Lithuania.pdf

159. Results are slightly higher when calculations are based on

weight than on number of units sold. Since no gures on units

were available for year 2016, we used weight-based calcula-

tions.

160. Ac t No. 302/2019 Coll. On the deposit for non-rellable

beverage containers (the “Deposit System Act”). Available at:

https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/slo198891.pdf

161. Sensoneo, Overview and results of the deposit return

schemes in Europe (sensoneo.com). Available at: https://sen-

soneo.com/waste-library/deposit-return-schemes-overview-eu-

rope/

162. Správca zálohového systému, Deposit return system in

Slovakia (spravcazaloh.sk). Available at: https://www.spravcaza-

loh.sk/en/

163. System Administrator Website. Available at: https://www.

spravcazaloh.sk/

164. Správca zálohového systému, 2022, Annual Report for

2022, [In Slovakian]. Available at: https://www.spravcazaloh.

sk/Vy%CC%81roc%CC%8Cna%CC%81_spra%CC%81va_

Spra%CC%81vcu_za%CC%81lohove%CC%81ho_syste%C-

C%81mu_2022.pdf

165. This denition is based on Slovakian food legislation

166. Správca zálohového systému, 2022, Annual Report for

2022, [In Slovakian]. Available at: https://www.spravcazaloh.

sk/Vy%CC%81roc%CC%8Cna%CC%81_spra%CC%81va_

Spra%CC%81vcu_za%CC%81lohove%CC%81ho_syste%C-

C%81mu_2022.pdf

167. Ibid.

168. Ibid.

169. Ibid.

170. Presentation of Laura Antenia, Deputy Director General of

State Environmental Service, during the online event organised

by Reloop in September 2023

171. Cabinet Regulation No. 519 – Regulations Regarding the

Operation of the Deposit System

172. Depozita Punkts, website : About DIO. Available at: https://

depozitapunkts.lv/par-mums-en

173. Ibid.

174. Presentation of Laura Antenia, Deputy Director General of

State Environmental Service, during the online event organised

by Reloop in September 2023

175. Miks Stūrītis, CEO of DIO, during the online event

orgnaised by Reloop in September 2023

176. Depozita Punkts, 30 June 2023, ‘The transition period for

new deposit products ends; the number of packages handed

over has exceeded 400 million’, [In Latvian]. Available at: https://

depozitapunkts.lv/nosledzas-parejas-periods-jaunajiem-depozi-

177. Ibid.

178. Depozita Punkts, 26 June 2023, ‘The record of the deposit

system has been reached: almost 2 million deposit packages

were handed over on the post-holiday day’ [In Latvian]. Avai-

lable at: Sasniegts depozīta sistēmas rekords: pēcsvētku dienā

nodoti teju 2 miljoni depozīta iepakojumu - Depozīta iepakojuma

operators (depozitapunkts.lv)

179. As indicated by Miks Sturitis, the CEO of the system ope-

rator during an online event organised by Reloop, titled: Deep

Dive European DRS, in September 2023

180. As indicated by Miks Sturitis, the CEO of the system ope-

rator during an online event organised by Reloop, titled: Deep

Dive European DRS, in September 2023

181. Presentation of Laura Antenia, Deputy Director General of

State Environmental Service, during the online event organised

by Reloop in September 2023

182. Presentation of Laura Antenia, Deputy Director General of

State Environmental Service, during the online event organised

by Reloop in September 2023

183. Malta recycles 10% of plastic packaging waste, according

to Eurostat 2020 data, the lowest in the EU (Eurostat (ENV_

WASPACR)

184. BCRS, Environment First - BCRS Malta Ltd. Available at:

https://bcrsmalta.mt/environment-rst/

185. Waldeck S., 17 November 2022, ‘Malta becomes rst

Mediterranean island country to implement DRS’, [Packaging

Insights]. Available at: https://www.packaginginsights.com/news/

malta-becomes-rst-mediterranean-island-country-to-imple-

ment-drs.html

186. BCRS, Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://

bcrsmalta.mt/faqs/

187. Ibid.

188. Ibid.

189. BCRS, BCRS hits 100 million recycling mark in major

milestone - BCRS Malta Ltd. Available at: https://bcrsmalta.mt/

news/bcrs-hits-100-million-recycling-mark-in-major-milestone/

190. The system was launched on 30 November 2023.

191. EEA, 2022, Early warning assessment related to the 2025

targets for municipal waste and packaging waste, Country

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Prole: Romania.

192. Taylor B., 1 December 2023, ‘Romania launches national

deposit-return system’, [Recycling Today]. Available at: https://

www.recyclingtoday.com/news/romania-beverage-bottle-can-re-

cycling-deposit-return-sensoneo/

193. Taylor B., 1 December 2023, ‘Romania launches national

deposit-return system’, [Recycling Today]. Available at: https://

www.recyclingtoday.com/news/romania-beverage-bottle-can-re-

cycling-deposit-return-sensoneo/

194. RetuRO, Despre SGR [In Romanian]. Available at: https://

returosgr.ro/despre-sgr

195. Spasić V., 4 December 2023, ‘Romania introduces deposit

refund system’, [Balkan Green Energy News]. Available at:

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/romania-introduces-depo-

sit-refund-system/

196. RetuRO website [In Romanian]. Available at: https://retu-

rosgr.ro/

197. Taylor B., 1 December 2023, ‘Romania launches national

deposit-return system’, [Recycling Today]. Available at: https://

www.recyclingtoday.com/news/romania-beverage-bottle-can-re-

cycling-deposit-return-sensoneo/

198. Spasić V., 4 December 2023, ‘Romania introduces deposit

refund system’, [Balkan Green Energy News]. Available at:

https://balkangreenenergynews.com/romania-introduces-depo-

sit-refund-system/

199. Taylor B., 1 December 2023, ‘Romania launches national

deposit-return system’, [Recycling Today]. Available at: https://

www.recyclingtoday.com/news/romania-beverage-bottle-can-re-

cycling-deposit-return-sensoneo/

200. RetuRO, Q&A [In Romanian]. Available at: https://returosgr.

ro/intrebari-frecvente-comercianti

201. RetuRO, Q&A [In Romanian]. Available at: https://returosgr.

ro/intrebari-frecvente-comercianti.

202. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

203. Upstream, 14 April 2023, ‘Which comes rst? Extended

Producer Responsibility or Deposit-Return?’ [Upstream]. Avai-

lable at: https://upstreamsolutions.org/blog/drs-epr

204. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

205. Presentation of Martin Udengaard, Head of Business

Development Dansk Retursystem, during the Reloop event in

September 2023. Available at: https://www.reloopplatform.org/

resources/reuse-and-recycling-through-deposit-systems-confe-

rence-recordings/

206. Presentation of Saulius Galadauskas, President of Lithua-

nian Brewers Association Chairman of the Board of USAD (De-

posit System Administrator for one way packaging). Available

at: https://www.zazemiata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/

DRS-Lithuania.pdf

207. DanskreturSystem, 2017 Yearly Report [In Danish]. Avai-

lable at: https://danskretursystem.dk/app/uploads/2020/05/Aars-

rapport-Dansk-retursystem-2017.pdf

208. DanskreturSystem, 2022 Yearly Report [In Danish].

Available at: https://danskretursystem.dk/app/uploads/2023/03/

Aarsrapport-2022.pdf

209. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

210. Presentation of Saulius Galadauskas, President of Lithua-

nian Brewers Association Chairman of the Board of USAD (De-

posit System Administrator for one way packaging). Available

at: https://www.zazemiata.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/

DRS-Lithuania.pdf

211. The latest changes to the legislation had an impact on

the reporting of data: the Packaging Ordonnance included

targets for ‘ecologically advantageous’ single use packaging,

whereas the current legislation include targets related only to

reusable packaging. As a result, data specic to ecologically

advantageous single use beverage packaging is not separately

analysed/estimated in the latest publications but included in

the one-way packaging category. The graph below therefore

presents the aggregated category since 2007 for better compa-

rison.

212. German Environment Agency, Fragen und Antworten:

Verpackungen und Verpackungsabfälle [In German]. Avai-

lable at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/ab-

fall-ressourcen/produktverantwortung-in-der-abfallwirtschaft/

verpackungen/fragen-antworten-verpackungen-verpackungsab-

faelle#410-wie-kann-der-einsatz-von-wiederverwendbaren-alter-

nativen-fur-essen-und-trinken-unterwegs-zb-den-sog-coee-to-

go-gestarkt-werden

213. German Environment Agency, Fragen und Antworten:

Verpackungen und Verpackungsabfälle [In German]. Avai-

lable at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/ab-

fall-ressourcen/produktverantwortung-in-der-abfallwirtschaft/

verpackungen/fragen-antworten-verpackungen-verpackungsab-

faelle#410-wie-kann-der-einsatz-von-wiederverwendbaren-alter-

nativen-fur-essen-und-trinken-unterwegs-zb-den-sog-coee-to-

go-gestarkt-werden

214. As indicated by Miks Sturitis, the CEO of the system ope-

rator during an online event organised by Reloop in September

2023, titled: DEEP DIVE EUROPEAN DRS

215. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

216. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

217. Ibid.

218. Balcers O., Brizga J., Moora H., Raal R., 2019, Deposit re-

turn systems for beverage containers in the Baltic states, Riga:

green liberty.

219. Keep Britain Tidy, 2020, Litter Composition Analysis Sum-

mary Report. Available at: https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/sites/

default/les/resources/20200330%20KBT%20Litter%20Compo-

sition%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf

220. Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful, 2023, Litter Composition

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

Analysis Report 2022/23

221. RDC Environment, 2020, Préparation, encadrement, suivi

et traitement statistique de l’analyses des

déchets sauvages en Wallonie Rapport nal [In French]. Avai-

lable at: http://environnement.wallonie.be/dechets/documents/

Analyse-des-dechets-sauvages-en-Wallonie.pdf

222. Keep Britain Tidy, 2020, Litter Composition Analysis

Summary Report. Available at: https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/

sites/default/les/resources/20200330%20KBT%20Litter%20

Composition%20Report%20-%20FINAL.pdf

223. Eunomia, Zero Waste Europe, 2022, How Circular Is

PET? A report on the circularity of PET Bottles, Using Europe

as a case study.

224. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

225. OECD, Webpage on Deposit Refund Systems. Available

at: https://www.oecd.org/stories/ocean/deposit-refund-sche-

mes-58ba8c/

226. Rosetti P., 2022, Deposit Refund Systems Are More Eec-

tive Than Mandates, R STREET SHORTS No. 112. Available

at: https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/update_

RSTREETSHORT112-5-1.pdf

227. Eunomia, Zero Waste Europe, 2022, How Circular Is PET?

A report on the circularity of PET Bottles, Using Europe as a

case study

228. Packaging Europe, 2022, Renewed calls for priority access

to rPET from the European beverage industry. Available at:

https://packagingeurope.com/news/renewed-calls-for-priority-ac-

cess-to-rpet-from-the-european-beverage-industry/8685.article

229. Eunomia, Zero Waste Europe, 2022, How Circular Is PET?

A report on the circularity of PET Bottles, Using Europe as a

case study.

230. Cordle M. et al, EUNOMIA, 2019, A Deposit System for the

Czech Republic: Final Report. Available at: https://www.zalohu-

jme.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Deposit-Refund-System-

for-the-Czech-Republic.pdf

231. Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research, 2017,

Comparison of recycling and incineration of aluminium cans,

OR.07.17. Available at: https://norsus.no/publikasjon/compari-

son-of-recycling-and-incineration-of-aluminium-cans/

232. Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research, 2017, Com-

parison of recycling and incineration of PET bottles. Available at:

https://norsus.no/publikasjon/comparison-of-recycling-and-inci-

neration-of-pet-bottles/

233. These include OECD, Reloop Platform and Zero Waste

Europe.

234. European Court of Auditors, 2020, EU action to tackle the

issue of plastic waste, Review No 4. Available at: Review No

4/2020: EU action to tackle the issue of plastic waste (europa.eu)

235. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022, Depo-

sit-refund systems and the interplay with additional mandatory

extended producer responsibility policies - OECD Environment

Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.

org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?expires=1702378051&id=id&ac-

cname=guest&checksum=1477CD271375CCE2B-

CA53237A63A7369

236. Cordle M. et al, Eunomia, 2019, A Deposit System for the

Czech Republic: Final Report. Available at: https://www.zalohu-

jme.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Deposit-Refund-System-

for-the-Czech-Republic.pdf

237. Cordle M. et al, EUNOMIA, 2019, A Deposit System for the

Czech Republic: Final Report. Available at: https://www.zalohu-

jme.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/A-Deposit-Refund-System-

for-the-Czech-Republic.pdf

238. The European Commission, 2022, COMMISSION STAFF

WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT for

the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and

Council on packaging and packaging waste, amending Regula-

tion (EU) 2019/1020, and repealing Directive 94/62/EC

239. WRAP, 2019, Drinks Recycling On-the-Go: Final Report.

Available at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/les/2021-03/

OTG%20Drinks%20Containers%20Final%20Report%20

ENG017-012.pdf

240. Plastics Europe, 2022, Plastics: the Facts 2022. Available

at: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PE-

PLASTICS-THE-FACTS_V7-Tue_19-10-1.pdf

241. Plastics Europe, 2022, Plastics: the Facts 2022. Available

at: https://plasticseurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PE-

PLASTICS-THE-FACTS_V7-Tue_19-10-1.pdf

242. EUNOMIA, 2022, PET Market in Europe: State of Play

243. EUNOMIA, Zero Waste Europe, 2022, How Circular Is

PET? A report on the circularity of PET Bottles, Using Europe as

a case study

244. European Aluminium, website for aluminium in packaging

industry. Available at: https://european-aluminium.eu/about-alu-

minium/aluminium-in-use/#packaging

245. Passarini F. et al, 2018, JRC Technical Reports: Material

Flow Analysis of Aluminium, Copper, and Iron in the EU-28.

Available at: https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/MFA_Report_

June2018_FINAL.pdf

246. WRAP, 2019, Drinks Recycling On-the-Go: Final Report.

Available at: https://wrap.org.uk/sites/default/les/2021-03/

OTG%20Drinks%20Containers%20Final%20Report%20

ENG017-012.pdf

247. EUNOMIA, 2022, PET Market in Europe: State of Play

248. Report makes reference to EU 27 + 3

249. EUNOMIA, 2022, PET Market in Europe: State of Play

250. LCA of beverage container production, collection and

treatment systems

251. R-PET prices reached an all-time high in January 2022,

which was followed by an equally hard downturn in the second

half of the same year. For instance see: https://www.icis.com/

explore/resources/news/2023/05/25/10889556/europe-r-pet-

market-subdued-ahead-of-june-price-talks/

252. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

253. Zhou G., Gu Y., Wu Y., Gong Y., Mu X., Han H., Chang

T., 2020, A systematic review of the deposit-refund system for

beverage packaging: Operating mode, key parameter and de-

velopment trend, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 251

254. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additio-

nal mandatory extended producer responsibility policies

- OECD Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available

at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.

pdf?expires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&check-

sum=1477CD271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

Deposit Refund Systems in the EU - 2023 Update

255. Ibid.

256. EUNOMIA, 2022, PET Market in Europe: State of Play

257. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

258. Which comes rst? Extended Producer Responsibility or

Deposit-Return? — Upstream (upstreamsolutions.org)

259. The Case Study on Belgium will be published separately

as it is still in review phase.

260. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

261. Reloop, Fact Sheet: Deposit Return Systems Reduce Litter

262. Laubinger F., Brown A., Börkey P., Dubois M., 2022,

Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 208. Available at: https://

www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/a80f4b26-en.pdf?ex-

pires=1702378051&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1477C-

D271375CCE2BCA53237A63A7369

263. Ibid.

264. Upstream, 14 April 2023, ‘Which comes rst? Extended

Producer Responsibility or Deposit-Return?’ [Upstream]. Avai-

lable at: https://upstreamsolutions.org/blog/drs-epr

265. This last point is now irrelevant for the EU, since most of

the MS already have an EPR scheme for packaging in place.

266.Ibid.

267. Di Foggia G., Beccarello M., 2022, An Overview of

Packaging Waste Models in Some European Countries. Re-

cycling 2022, 7, 38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/recy-

cling7030038

268. Calebrese et al, 2020, Operating modes and cost burdens

for the European deposit-refund systems: A systematic ap-

proach for their analysis and design

269. Calebrese et al, 2020, Operating modes and cost burdens

for the European deposit-refund systems: A systematic ap-

proach for their analysis and design

270. Calebrese et al, 2020, Operating modes and cost burdens

for the European deposit-refund systems: A systematic ap-

proach for their analysis and design

271. The Case Study on Belgium will be published separately

as it is still in review phase.

272. Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional

mandatory extended producer responsibility policies - Environ-

ment Working Paper No.