In NAWPA, all of our affiliates work in states or provinces that have legislated Deposit Return Systems (DRS), which were established to reduce litter. While DRS can be mandatory or voluntary, and can cover many different types of products, a DRS law covering beverage containers is often referred to as a “Bottle Bill.” 

Bottle Bills also establish specific responsibilities for different actors within the recycling value chain. DRS are a form of extended producer responsibility (EPR) policy - which seeks to hold producers responsible for the life cycle of their products.

Learn more about Extended Producer Responsibility and waste pickers. 

But not all Bottle Bills are made the same, and they can be designed in ways that are more or less enabling for waste pickers’ work. 

For example, Bottle Bills differ according to a few different measures:

​

• Bottle deposit: Most deposit amounts are 5 or 10 cents, although under some Bottle Bills, certain containers (such as larger glass bottles) may be worth a higher amount. Among states in the USA that have Bottle Bills, most have 5 cent deposits. Among provinces in Canada, most have 10 cent deposits.

• Eligible containers: Most Bottle Bills cover at least metal and plastic materials. Some more modernized Bottle Bills (such as the one in British Columbia) cover all materials used to produce beverages, including less common beverage container types like foil drink pouches, juice boxes, ceramic bottles, and polystyrene cups. Bottle Bills also establish a cut-off amount for eligible containers by volume. 

• Redemption limits: Some Bottle Bills establish requirements around the number of materials that redemption sites are obligated to receive. If there are no such obligations on retailers, many sites set low limits, which makes it hard for waste pickers to redeem their materials, as they typically collect in high volumes. 

• Handling fees: Some Bottle Bills include a handling fee to cover the cost of receiving the materials from the public, processing them, storing them and passing them on for recycling. The processing step may involve sorting containers by material or by brand. Handling fees can allow for an independent recycling network to take shape. In NYC for example, a 3.5 cent handling fee has enabled the creation of redemption centers across the state - most of which are locally-owned small businesses. Handling fees can create conditions for greater waste picker participation in deposit return systems, as they can create a way for waste pickers themselves to advance in the value chain into the operation of redemption centers / depots. One challenge, though, is that increases in the handling fee often have to be legislated, and can be difficult to rally political support for, leading to the closure of depots.  Handling fees can also be relegated to certain actors but not others.  For example, Coop Les Valoristes had to fight for ten years to gain access to the handling fee under Quebec’s DRS.  

• Sorting requirements: In some states like New York, beverage containers have to be sorted by distributor (Sure We Can works with eight). This creates extra work for waste pickers and redemption centers and can be quite onerous as it requires detailed knowledge about which brands should be grouped together.  At the same time, sorting work generates low-barrier jobs that canners are well suited for because they already know which materials are eligible under the local DRS.  

• Unredeemed deposit beneficiary: In any Bottle Bill system, there will be unredeemed deposits - that is, containers that were not returned to the redemption system (either because they were thrown away or put into municipal recycling). This can result in substantial funds - for example, in New York City in 2022, this amounted to 140 million dollars. Different Bottle Bills have different requirements in terms of what happens to these funds. Government-run systems require distributors to turn these over to the state to fund the administration of the system. Systems that are managed by the beverage industry allow distributors to keep all or some of these deposits. 

​

Some NAWPA affiliates have advocated for Bottle Bills with higher deposits and the inclusion of more eligible containers, but in addition, NAWPA believes that a just transition requires more than just making redemption more lucrative. Achieving a just transition requires the creation of decent work - or work that pays a living wage and offers social benefits - for waste pickers to also operate formal aspects of the system, including sorting and redemption of materials.  For this to be possible, there must be a financial incentive, like a handling fee or a premium, in the system for stakeholders like waste picker organizations to operate depots or other formal components of the system.  Payments for services should include per container payments, and should be sufficient to ensure adequate, decent and formal work.  Waste picker organizations should have priority in the implementation of the system, ideally articulated in policy, so that limited depot permits or ineligibility for handling fees don’t ultimately shut them out.

​​

Sure We Can and Ground Score’s Position on Inclusive EPR

Across NAWPA affiliates, we are operating under a range of different types of Bottle Bills that reflect very different political contexts. Below is a table that describes the different features of Bottle Bills in each of our geographies.