If I may comment on this issue, we have to look at the rate of recovery. It was mentioned earlier: the rate of recovery of PET bottles, for example, is nearly 70%. A deposit will not strongly encourage people to bring the bottle back, especially if the bottle ends up in the same type of system.
If the government starts to fund parallel systems, costs will skyrocket. If recycling and a deposit system were implemented in parallel and the return rates were not optimal, we would end up with two parallel systems through which infrastructure, transportation and greenhouse gas are potentially being generated.
What is interesting in returning to deposit systems is reusable packaging that has been cleaned, decontaminated and refilled, such as the brown beer bottle. However, if the packaging has to be crushed or if the plastic has to be decontaminated and recycled in the same way as a bottle or a product that currently does not require a deposit, all we are doing is opening other avenues, but not engaging in densification.
Earlier, you asked what is happening in the system when it comes to flexible packaging. The system is based on tonnage and our packaging is currently becoming increasingly light and small. So the recycling system must evolve to target and deal with packaging by volume and by unit.