Circular Islands: Key takeaways from the webinar on Small Island Developing States, marine litter and Deposit Return Systems (DRS)
Islands and remote territories bear an environmental burden they did not generate in proportion: marine litter arrives through currents, fleets and imports, affecting fragile ecosystems and ocean-dependent economies. In the webinar “Circular Islands: Winning the Fight Against Marine Litter with DRS” held on 18 February 2026, the discussion focused on practical solutions for beverage containers and on how to design policies that work at island scale.
The conversation highlighted a central idea: proven tools exist, but in Small Island Developing States the key is adaptation. A deposit return system or an extended producer responsibility scheme cannot simply be copied and pasted. It must be designed for local realities, or implementation will fail.
Who participated
Moderated by Lucía Norris, the moderator of the webinar, (Galápagos Conservation Trust), the panel brought together Kissy Ika Chávez representing Rapa Nui, Thais Vojvodic (Common Seas), Camille Mondon Renaud (Landscape and Waste Management Agency, Seychelles) and Martín Valese (Global Deposit and Return Platform), who opened and closed the session.
What was discussed
The webinar connected the diagnosis of marine pollution in island territories with results-oriented policy measures. Speakers addressed the “external” burden of litter in islands, the return to reuse as a historical practice, and how deposit systems for beverage containers can reduce environmental leakage and relieve pressure on landfills. The role of extended producer responsibility as a financial and regulatory framework was also explored, along with the potential of harmonised regional approaches to overcome structural constraints in Small Island Developing States.
Final reflection
The webinar highlighted a central tension in today’s expansion of deposit return systems. Global momentum is clear and encouraging, yet uncertainty lies in local implementation. Designing systems that function in small-scale, logistically complex and remote-market contexts requires deep adaptation. As Martín Valese noted in closing, the challenge is to stop copying European models and design solutions aligned with each territory’s cultural, geographic and social realities. This perspective guides the work of the Global Deposit and Return Platform: connecting experiences, amplifying learning and promoting context-fit systems. In islands, success depends as much on the instrument as on its operational adaptation.
Key learnings
Disproportionate impact of marine litter and its link to external flows
From the outset, moderation stated it plainly: marine litter is an unfair burden for islands because it “comes largely from external sources.” Kissy Ika Chávez, speaking from Rapa Nui, reinforced this with a message of interdependence: “we have one ocean,” and what happens in one place is felt elsewhere, especially in coastal and island ecosystems. In this context, litter carried by fleets and currents is a reminder that islands cannot solve a transboundary problem alone.
Deposit return systems as a tangible solution for beverage containers in island contexts
Several contributions emphasised that beverage containers are a visible and recoverable fraction of the waste stream. Common Seas showed that, in modelling for Saint Lucia, beverage plastics and bottles frequently leak into the environment, and that a deposit return system can deliver meaningful impacts in an island context, even if volumes appear small compared to larger countries. A typical bottleneck was also highlighted: pressure on a single landfill with limited capacity, making it urgent to capture high-volume, high-leakage materials.
Typical operational constraints in Small Island Developing States
Small Island Developing States face structural constraints that shape packaging and waste management: limited space for infrastructure, strong dependence on imported packaged goods, and the need to export recovered materials to distant markets with high and volatile logistics costs. Additional operational challenges include low source separation, limited engagement of retail and consumers, material contamination, and constrained equipment capacity. Together, these conditions reduce the efficiency of return systems and require designs adapted to small-scale and geographically isolated contexts.
Extended producer responsibility and harmonised regional approaches to overcome barriers
The Common Seas presentation, delivered by Thais Vojvodic, stressed that extended producer responsibility and deposit return systems do not compete; they complement each other. “It is not one or the other.” The proposed framing was clear: EPR can provide the financial and governance mechanism, while DRS addresses specific streams such as beverages. The most distinctive element was the emphasis on regional coordination. Economically and politically, grouping neighbouring islands or countries can create scale, reduce free-riding, increase influence over product design, and improve access to regional or international recycling markets. The conclusion was both cautious and useful: successful design will be “highly context dependent” and requires additional regional adaptation.
Seychelles as a concrete case: data, functioning and implementation tensions
Seychelles, presented by Camille Mondon-Renaud, shared a state-led return system introduced progressively. It began in 2007 with plastic bottles, added cans in 2012, and alcoholic glass bottles in 2018. In 2024, more than 17 million plastic bottles were delivered to redemption centres. Financing comes from an environmental charge applied to containers at import, embedded in the product price and channelled into a public fund that pays compensation per unit recovered.
Unlike models where the deposit is visible and redeemable in retail, returns in Seychelles occur only at dedicated centres. In practice, this has shifted the system’s operational backbone to the informal sector: collectors retrieve containers from waste streams and bring them to centres, where they receive payment. Consumers remain largely outside the return loop, as the incentive is neither explicit in the price nor directly linked to the purchase point.
Territorial contrast within the country illustrates this dependence on informal collection. Although the regulatory framework is the same in Mahé, Praslin and La Digue, outcomes differ: in La Digue, where informal collection activity is lower, more containers end up in landfill. The case shows that even under a single legal framework, return effectiveness varies with local social and operational conditions.
We invite you to watch the full session recording and explore the discussion with practical examples and operational insights
You can also stay connected with the Global Deposit and Return Platform for upcoming webinars already announced:
15 April (other waste streams and DRS) and 17 June (DRS legislation)
