A new Future for Refillables

Policy instruments in Europe for Reuse protection

and experiences from Germany

Budapest, 15th February 2007

by Jürgen Resch, Executive Director

In former years beverages were packed only in refillables with a deposit.

History …

In 2002, world-wide more than 75% of all beve-rages were packed in cans or plastic bottles – often without deposit.

… and reality today

Basic EU policy instruments

• Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC

• Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (PPWD) 94/62/EC

• Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste

The recent situation in Europe

• After the installation of a new mandatory deposit system in Germany - with positive effects to the refillable system - more countries are interested to follow suit

• Industry-driven LCA’s and new EU studies try to show that there is “no ecological benefit” of refillable systems

• Strong campaign against Re-use and Refillable Systems driven by Green Dot systems, certain members of drinks and packaging Industry

Need for a thorough and balanced assessment of the potential for refillable systems in Europe

– EU Directive 94/62 on packaging and packaging waste

• Future revision?

• Bring in line with the Waste Framework Directive

– EU Waste Framework Directive proposal• Prevention• Reuse• Recycling • Recovery• Final disposal

Refillables: a better system to meet EU objectives of packaging waste reduction

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT OF DIRECTIVE 94/62/ECCOM(2006) 767 final, 6.12.2006

“Most studies found reusable packaging to be better in situations with generally low transport distances and high return rates, and one-way packaging to be better in situations with generally high transport distances and low return rates.

Given this background, it seems currently neither possible nor appropriate to propose harmonised measures to encourage reusable consumer beverage packaging at the Community level.

In general, appropriately designed national measures encouraging reusable packaging have environmental benefits. On the other hand, such measures can have impacts on the internal market. Finding a right balance between the involved economic and environmental interests remains one of the main tasks in this sector. Therefore, with respect to beverage packaging, the Commission will further evaluate the need to clarify or amend the provisions of Articles 5 and 7 of the Packaging Directive in order to facilitate its free circulation within the internal market. …”

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT OF DIRECTIVE 94/62/ECANNEX Brussels, 6.12.2006 COM(2006) 767 final

“…It is estimated that today Reuse systems are no longer commercially viable without a political support since they are absent or only of marginal importance in those Member States where such a political support does not exist. At the same time unilateral measures taken at Member State level in order to introduce beverage packaging reuse systems have a potential to partition the internal market. …”

1. Bans for one-way containers (Denmark until 2002) and Obligations for specific product-packaging combinations (Netherlands until 2006)

2. Fiscal Measures on one-way containers or tax reduction on reuse containers (Ontario, New York State, Finland, Belgium)

3. Return- and Collection systems with deposit on one-way containers (about 30 systems worldwide, in Europe: Germany, Sweden, Estonia, Netherlands for bottles > 05,l and Croatia)

4. Combination of Deposit and Tax (Finland on cans, Denmark, Norway)

Instruments to protect reuse and to enforce recycling

1. Bans and Obligations are the best instruments, but… Brussels, 6.12.2006 COM(2006) 767 final

“…The most effective measures aiming to protect refillable packaging systems included bans or authorisation procedures for one-way packaging. However, such measures were incompatible with Article 18 of the Directive, which provides that “Member States shall not impede the placing on the market of their territory of packaging which satisfies the provisions of this Directive”.

Article 5 of the Directive allows Member States to “encourage reuse systems of packaging, which can be reused in an environmentally sound manner, in conformity with the Treaty”. This limits the freedom of Member States to measures which are in line with articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty. Following the jurisprudence of the Court, in order to be justified for reasons of environmental protection such measures must be appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued.

2. Fiscal measuresBrussels, 6.12.2006 COM(2006) 767 final

“…Several Member States have introduced fiscal measures to protect refillable beverage packaging. Article 15 of the Packaging Directive provides that in the absence of Community measures aiming to promote the implementation of the objectives set by this directive, Member States may introduce economic instruments in line with the relevant provisions of the Treaty. Measures of a purely fiscal nature need to be assessed under Article 90 of the Treaty. This article does not contain any requirements for an environmental justification of tax exemptions or reduced tax rates.

Therefore, national measures on this basis were generally found compatible with Community legislation and have become more widely applied in the Member States. Nevertheless, technical specifications linked to fiscal measures also need to be assessed under Articles 28-30 of the Treaty. Such technical specifications were found incompatible with the Community law...”

3. Return- and Collection – Deposit Systems Brussels, 6.12.2006 COM(2006) 767 final

“…Measures concerning the return and collection of packaging waste are based on Article 7 of the Packaging Directive. This article foresees that Member States shall take the necessary measures to set up such systems for used packaging and/or packaging waste.

Article 7 also allows the use of deposit systems for one-way packaging. However, the same article provides that such systems shall apply to imported products under non-discriminatory conditions.

In judgements C-463/01 and C-309/02, the Court took the view that “Article 7 of the Packaging Directive leaves it to the Member States to choose (a collection system) provided that the systems chosen are designed to channel packaging to the most appropriate waste management alternatives and form part of a policy covering all packaging and packaging waste.”

3. Return- and Collection – Deposit Systems - Conditions

Brussels, 6.12.2006 COM(2006) 767 final

Certain conditions have to be observed as regards system which are newly introduced and replace older systems:

"The new system must be equally appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objectives of Directive 94/62. In particular, where the new system is (…) a deposit and return system, the Member State must ensure that there are a sufficient number of return points so that consumers who have been charged a deposit when buying goods in non-reusable packaging can recover the deposit even if they do not go back to the initial place of purchase.“

Our Comments on the Study:COM(2006) 767 final, 6.12.2006

We agree that re-use systems for beverage packaging:

• carry environmental benefits especially but not only when implemented at local level√

• require political support √

• are compatible with internal market are most

effectively protected through bans and obligations√ – it is a pity that they are not compatible with EU-law!

• the remaining two instruments are fiscal measures and deposit √ - best success with deposit systems or even better a combination of deposit and tax.

Differing attitudes towards Re-use systems for beverage packaging in the EU Member States

• Clear strategies to promote reuse

Finland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Netherlands, Estonia, Croatia

• Loose strategies to protect reuse

Austria, Belgium

• No strategies to protect reuse

UK, France, Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Malta Portugal, Italy and Spain, and most Balkan states

The introduction of a deposit in Germany on cans and plastic bottles is a success story for REFILLABLES.

The deposit creates a level playing field for refillables and one way beverage containers

With legal support…

Littering problems are typical for countries without deposit like in Germany until 2002

Without legal support…

• Germany is not the first country, where the deposit was implemented to provide better recycling and protect refillables

• Worldwide there are more than 30 different systems running – all successfully

• New deposit systems have been implemented 2006 in the Netherlands (for PET bottles >0,5l) and in Croatia. In other states implementation is being seriously considered.

Deposit to protect refillables

Worldwide Deposit SystemsCountries/regions with an installed deposit system for one-way containers

Countries/regions that are in the process of evaluating a deposit-system for one-way containers

Canada– 8 of 10 Canadian provinces

have a deposit-return system– Recovery rate of more than 75%– Systems implemented between

1970 and 1997

Sweden– National deposit system

including soft drinks and beer

– Deposit on one-way containers implemented in 1984 for cans and 1994 for PET (deposit on refillables already in place)

– Recovery rate of 80-90% on one way containers

Norway– National deposit system

including soft drinks and beer

– Deposit on one-way containers implemented 1999 (deposit on refillables already in place)

– Recovery rate of 75-90%

Israel

HawaiiJan 2005

Finland– National deposit system

including soft drinks and beer

– Deposit on cans only from 1996 (deposit on refillables already in place)

Denmark– National deposit system

including soft drinks and beer

– Implementation date Sept. 2002

– Deposit on one-way glass and PET and on cans (deposit on refillables already in place)

Germany– Implementation date

1.01.2003– Deposit on one-way

glass and PET and on cans (deposit on refil-lables already in place)

EstoniaMay 2005

USA– 11 of 50 states have a

deposit return system– Systems implemented

between 1972 and 1987– Deposit systems vary

across States, but the majority includes beer and soft-drinks

• Highest return rates for one-way containers (Sweden: 84%, Norway 85%, Finland 95%, Germany > 90%) No other system can compete!

• Clean material fractions generated right at source enable high quality recycling (waste material valued at 100-200 € for coloured post user PET material, 300 € for uncoloured post user PET)

• All the material collected for recycling is currently recycled

Deposit: benefits for recycling and re-use

Deposit : an instrument preventing littering

• One-way deposit prevents littering of one-way containers

• With re-use systems littering problems do not exist

• Littering is one of the most important indicators of environmental pollution

• Littering reduction is an ecological and economical waste management target

• Littering has to be taken into consideration in LCAs

Example: Reduction of littering in Germany

• Until 2002 : 1-2 billion one-way beverage containers were littered (20-25% of all littering) Witzenhausen Institute Study

• Since 2003: Littering of one-way beverage packaging has disappeared on all packs under the deposit scheme

Deposit: Positive effect for refillables

Beer Ref.Quote Dec 02 69%

2005 89% +18%

Soft drinks

Ref.Quote Dec 02 48%

2005 55% + 7%

Water Ref.Quote Dec 02 66%

2005 53% -13%

Mandatory deposit helps to ensure refillable packaging reaches high return rates:

Without deposit

Juice Ref.Quote Dec 02 18%

2005 11% -7%

19%

81%

31%

69%

2%

89%

9%

PET OW

Re-Use

Glass OW + Can

Example: Positive effect on the German beer market

Percentage

1992 2002 2005

Evolution of re-use packaging in Austria 1994 – 2003

Source: ARA-Annual reports

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mineral water Soft drinks beer Fruit juice Total

1994

1997

2000

2001

2002

2003

Decline of re-use systems without legislative support

Case study Austria

Evolution of the re-use rate for soft drinks and water in Portugal

Titulo:

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

1

Titulo:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

re-u

se in

%Re-use packagingsoft drinks

Re-use packagingmineral water

One-way packagingsoft drinks

One-way packagingmineral water

Source: Quercus, Portuguese situation on reusable packaging – December 2003

Decline of re-use systems without legislative support

Case study Portugal

Positive environmental effects of re-use systems

• Reduction of material consumption• Reduction of energy consumption • Reduction of landfill • Reduction of littering• Reduction of the global warming• Reduction of summer smog• Reduction of air and water pollution

Several studies confirm the environmental advantages of re-use systems, e.g.:

• LCA of the German Federal Environmental Agency UBA II, phase 1 and 2 (2000 and 2002)

• LCA of the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (1998)

• LCA of Norway (2003)• LCA of the TNO, Netherlands Organisation for

Applied Scientific Research (2001)• Screening LCA for relevant packaging of beer

ordered by can producer Ball Packaging, IFEU (III/ 2003)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

aluminium can tinplate can PET onewaybottle

PET reusebottle

glass reusebottle

crude

oil eq

u./100

0l

Material consumption

Source: IFEU Institute LCA III/2003 - relevant beverage packaging for beer

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

aluminium can tinplate can PET onewaybottle

PET reusebottle

glass reusebottle

kg CO

2-equ

./1000l

Global warming potential

Environmental performance of different packaging 1/2

Acidification

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

aluminium can tinplate can PET onewaybottle

PET reusebottle

glass reusebottle

in g S

O2-eq

u./100

0l

Source: IFEU Institute LCA III/2003 - relevant beverage packaging for beer

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

aluminium can tinplate can PET onewaybottle

PET reusebottle

glass reusebottle

CH4-e

qu./1

000l

Summer Smog

Environmental performance of different packaging 2/2

• Law about product fees from 2004• Targets for re-use for 2007:

– Water 7%– Wine 20%– Beer 60%– In the next years these shall increase – Reality is the very reverse!!!!!

• Apart from that Hungary has to meet EU recycling targets

• No collection at residence, only container collection

Situation in Hungary

Conclusions…

• Re-use and prevention go hand in hand in helping to substantially reduce packaging waste

• Deposit is the most efficient market mechanism to ensure a high rate of return for recycling of one-way and of refillable beverage packaging

• BUT: re-use systems for beverage packaging require political support

…what is expected from Hungary:

• A clear political commitment and strategy for protection and promotion of re-use

• A decision for the implementation of a deposit on one-way packaging

• On this base a roadmap including assistance and guidelines in exchange with other Member States to implement deposit systems for one-ways and refillables according to EU law and jurisprudence can be created

Contact:Jürgen ReschDeutsche Umwelthilfe e. V.Executive Director

resch@duh.de

Thank you for your attention!