CIWM Warns MRFs Could Lose Up to 30% of Material to DRS

UK materials recovery facilities could lose between 10% and 30% of material from commingled streams once the deposit return scheme launches on 1 October 2027, according to a report by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM). The institution's Infrastructure, Services and Operations Specialist Expert Group has used the findings to demand urgent clarity on how drinks containers that bypass the scheme will be identified and funded.

The report, titled Can UK MRFs Survive Packaging Reform?, examines the combined effects of the deposit return scheme (DRS), packaging extended producer responsibility, Simpler Recycling and other policy changes on MRF operations. Its central finding is what the group calls the "MRF gap": councils and MRF operators could continue paying to collect and sort eligible containers that escape the deposit system, without any settled mechanism for recovering those costs.

What does the deposit scheme cover?

DRS launches on 1 October 2027. In England and Northern Ireland it will cover single-use PET plastic, steel and aluminium drinks containers between 150ml and three litres. The government says the scheme will reduce litter, improve recycling rates and create higher-quality recycled material.

The expert group does not dispute that logic. It accepts the scheme will redirect valuable aluminium cans and PET bottles from commingled recycling into dedicated return routes. The problem sits with the remainder. Some eligible containers are expected to stay in kerbside, commercial and litter collections, where councils and MRF operators will keep shouldering the cost of handling them.

How big is the MRF gap?

The group's illustrative modelling suggests that between 10% and 30% of material could leave an example commingled stream. The range depends on assumptions about DRS participation rates and the rollout of separate fibre collections.

The group stressed the figures are not a national forecast. The analysis draws on operating data from one anonymised facility. Effects will vary according to material composition, contracts, commodity prices and collection systems.

The report also warns of a secondary consequence: removing aluminium drinks cans could shift the composition of remaining metal outputs. In one operator scenario, the proportion of aerosols in the metal fraction rose from about 2% to 9%. That shift raises questions about classification, permitting and treatment of the resulting material.

The group said the example does not mean the output would automatically be classified as hazardous. It nevertheless called for coordinated guidance from environmental regulators before DRS begins.

What other pressures face sorting facilities?

The report identifies further strains on MRF economics beyond the deposit scheme itself:

• Changes to paper and card collections
• The future introduction of plastic-film collections
• Uncertainty over carbon costs for waste incineration

Each reform taken alone is manageable, the group argues; taken together, they demand a cumulative impact assessment that government has not yet produced.

"Survival should not be confused with remaining economically unchanged," the report said.

What does CIWM want before October 2027?

The expert group sets out three recommendations. First, resolve DRS funding and reconciliation arrangements before the scheme's launch in October 2027. Second, assess the cumulative effect of the packaging reforms rather than treating each policy in isolation. Third, recognise MRFs as critical environmental infrastructure in their own right.

The deadline is fixed. DRS goes live on 1 October 2027, and the funding question — who pays for containers collected outside the system — remains open. Whether government closes the MRF gap before that date will decide whether sorting facilities absorb the cost or recover it.