“We believe this is a missed opportunity and that with such a low refund amount, which is worth less and less every day, it will be difficult to achieve the goal of 90% separately collected beverage packaging by 2030. According to data from the Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund, we are currently below 80%, depending on the material,” Ana-Marija Mileusnic from Green Action said in a statement to Hina.

With a deposit refund amount of €0.10, Croatia remains at the bottom of the EU ranking in terms of refund amounts.

The government, which passed this regulation, needs to recognise that this decision benefits retailers and beverage manufacturers, who will raise prices regardless of the amount of the refund, Mileusnic added.

No other country in the EU has a lower refund amount than Croatia. For example, the Baltic countries have a refund of €0.10 like Croatia, Slovakia has a refund of €0.15, Germany €0.25, and Finland 0.40, she said.

She noted that the government has further marginalised vulnerable social groups who survive by collecting bottles. In 2025, she explained, more bottles will need to be collected to make ends meet than in 2006 when the system was established.

Proposal for €0.15 refund rejected

Green Action and environmental organisations gathered in the Platform to Fight Plastic Pollution, requested an increase in the refund amount during public consultation so that the minimum value of packaging would be €0.15, as in Slovakia, which is socioeconomically similar to Croatia.

They also note that they have been waiting for the regulation since 2023, and during that time the economic situation has changed significantly, leading to price hikes. Therefore, they believe the refund amount should not be lower than €0.15, and, based on the German system, the amounts should vary depending on factors such as material, size, and recyclability, and could go up to €0.50, depending on the type of packaging.

However, Mileusnic stresses that the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Green Transition rejected the proposals from the associations, justifying that the proposed increase would further raise beverage prices in stores.

“This explanation, apart from being incorrect, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the deposit refund system works. The deposit refund is not part of the product price since the refund amount is fully reimbursed to consumers if they return the packaging to the collection point,” Mileusnic said.

In some European countries, for example, Sweden, the price on the store shelf shows only the product price, while the deposit refund amount is listed in smaller font below it to avoid misleading customers about the product’s price, she said.

This practice also prevents unfair commercial practices, such as planned price increases to round up the price of the product along with the packaging refund.

The associations also believe that the deadline of 1 January 2027, set by the government for expanding the current deposit refund system to cover all beverage packaging up to 3 litres, as well as multilayered packaging (such as Tetra Pak), is too far away and that the deposit refund should also cover another three-dimensional packaging for liquid food products, such as tomato purée or vinegar.