belgrade december 10, 2008
DESCRIPTION
Belgrade December 10, 2008. Integrated waste management of household waste in Europe with a special focus on packaging and its recycling Joachim Quoden General Manager. European Context. Small countries, dense population, high level of consumption - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Belgrade
December 10, 2008
Integrated waste management of household waste in Europe with a special focus on
packaging and its recycling
Joachim QuodenGeneral Manager
European Context
Small countries, dense population, high level of consumption
Threat of waste catastrophe in many European countries at end of ‘80’s/beginning of ‘90’s
Limited natural resources Limited landfill capacities Limited amount of tolerance in population regarding
throwaway society
Broader Policy Objectives
Introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Stop end-of-pipe thinking Set up closed cycle economy Internalize external costs Close material loop Reduce waste going to landfills
Packaging – Only One Part of Comprehensive Framework
Revised Wast Framework Directive (2008!) Landfill directive WEEE directive (electrical equipment) RoHS (hazardous waste) Batteries ELV directive (vehicles) REACH (chemicals) Integrated product policy
The revised Waste Framework Directive 2008
Encouraging the prevention of waste Introducing a general waste treatment hierarchy Promoting the use of waste as a secondary resource Reduce the landfill of waste as well as potent greenhouse gases
arising from such landfill sites Member States must design and implement waste prevention
programmes New recycling targets: By 2020, Member States must recycle 50%
of their household and similar waste and 70% of their construction and demolition waste
By 2015 separate collection shall be set up for at least the following: paper, metal, plastic and glass
Clarifying the notions of recovery, disposal, end of waste status and by-product
Specifying a procedure for the establishment of technical minimum standards for certain waste management operations
European Packaging Directive: Objectives
To harmonize national regulations regarding packaging & packaging waste management in the EU-countries
To avoid or reduce the impact of packaging waste on the environment
To guarantee the functioning of the internal market
To remove obstacles to trade & the distortion & restriction of competition
All member states have to implement the Packaging Directive into national law following the general guidelines but have freedom in the way how to do it
Revision of the Packaging Directive 94/62/EG
Old Directive New Directive(February 2004)
Deadline for all to 30.06.2001 to 31.12.2008for P, GR, IRE to 30.06.2005 to 31.12.2011for new members 2005 - 2009 to 31.12.2012 – 2015
Recovery Min.: 50 % Min.: 60 %Max.: 65 % Max.: -
Recycling Min.: 25 % Min.: 55 %Max.: 45 % Max.: 80 %
Recycling specific Materials
Glass Min.: 15 % Min.: 60 %Paper Min.: 15 % Min.: 60 %Metal Min.: 15 % Min.: 50 %Plastic Min.: 15 % Min.: 22,5 %Wood Min.: - Min.: 15 %
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Malta
Cyprus
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Lithuania
Slovenia
Greece
Estonia
Latvia
Hungary
Finland
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Ireland
France
Italy
Denmark
UK
Sweden
Netherlands
Czech Rep.
Luxembourg
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas în 2006(%)
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Malta
Greece
Cyprus
Portugal
Finland
Romania
Bulgaria
France
Ireland
Denmark
Hungary
Latvia
UK
Spain
Poland
Lithuania
Italy
Luxembourg
Estonia
Austria
Belgium
Slovenia
Slovakia
Germany
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Country Performance : Plastic Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Malta
Cyprus
Bulgaria
Poland
Estonia
Romania
Latvia
Lithuania
Slovakia
Denmark
Slovenia
Italy
Portugal
Greece
Spain
Luxembourg
Sweden
Ireland
UK
Germany
France
Finland
Austria
Belgium
Czech Rep.
Hungary
Country Performance : Paper Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Romania
Cyprus
Malta
Slovakia
Hungary
Greece
Lithuania
Poland
Latvia
Slovenia
Portugal
Estonia
Spain
UK
Bulgaria
Italy
France
Ireland
Czech Rep.
Finland
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Luxembourg
Belgium
Denmark
Country Performance : Glass Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bulgaria
Malta
Slovenia
Slovakia
Latvia
Ireland
Greece
Czech Rep.
Estonia
UK
Finland
Lithuania
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Italy
Denmark
Hungary
France
Sweden
Cyprus
Romania
Luxembourg
Germany
Belgium
Country Performance : Metal Recycling Quotas in 2006 (%)
GDP real and packaging consumption end-user in Germany 1995 – 2006
100,00100,99
102,81
104,90
107,01
110,45
111,82 111,82 111,57
112,76113,64
116,90
100,00
98,4397,87
100,90
105,62 105,96
102,36
104,04
101,12
99,5598,65
99,44
95,00
100,00
105,00
110,00
115,00
120,0019
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Jahr
Inde
x 19
95 =
100
BIP-real
Verpackungsverbrauch
Quelle: destatis, GVM, eigene Berechnungen Stand: April 2008
GDP versus packaging consumption in Austria
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
BIP
Marktmenge Verpackungen
In % (1991 = 100)
Quellen: Statistik Austria, WIFO, Prognos (Marktmengen 1991-1996), Umweltministerium (Marktmengen 1997-2005)
Environmental benefits of Packaging Directive greenhouse gas savings (around 25M tonnes of CO2
equivalent) resource savings (~10M tonnes of oil equivalent) reduced particulates emissions, decreased acidification, less
traffic noise, odours, visual disturbance
Sustainable Production & Consumption
European Commission DG Environment
Implementation of the Packaging Directive
1 without compliance scheme => TaxesDenmark
26 with Producer ResponsibilityAustria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway, Finland, Italy,
EPR, but close to marketUK (PRN System)
27 EU COUNTRIES + 2 EEA
+ 2 Accession Countries Croatia ???Fund versus EPR
1 with Fund Scheme run by industryIceland
1 with tax and compliance schemeThe Netherlands
„Dual model“ (Germany, Austria):
Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting and recycling; separate collection system besides collection of local authorities, no or limited influence from local authorities
„Shared model“ (France, Spain, Czech Rep.):
Shared responsibility between industry and local authorities, common agreements on the way of collection necessary
Tradable Credits Model (UK):
No link between industry and collection on the local level
Common principle, but several ways of implementation
The French systemThe French system
GOVERNMENTGOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS
MATERIAL MATERIAL REPROCESSING REPROCESSING ORGANISATIONSORGANISATIONS
Obliged CompaniesObliged Companies
Fees
PUBLICPUBLIC
Awareness raising
Commitment to recovery
Funding of the additional cost of selective collection
• Awareness raising and information
R&D support
Approval Marking
Take-back guarantee Commitment
to recovery and recycling LOCALLOCAL
AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES
Recycling guarantee
Assume legal undertakings
Take-back guarantee
How Schemes Differ (1)
Scope of activities household packaging only up to all packaging other waste streams (WEEE)
Share of costs recycling costs up to total costs
Recycling quotas 22,5% minimum quota of Directive up to 60% for plastics
Collection system bring system up to kerbside collection
How Schemes Differ (2)
Time allowed for implementation 1 year to 10 years
Need to cover all households Acceptable ways of recovery
energy recovery & materials recycling no energy recovery
Number of free-riders Labour costs Multiple compliance schemes
Costs for each packaging
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Can Alu0,33 l
Can Steel0,33 l
PET bottle0,5 l
Glass bottle0,5 l
Dänemark - Deposit Norwegen - DepositAustria - Kerbside Belgium - Kerbside
We do not think so ! Kerbside is the better way !
Mandatory deposit systems
Lack clear envirnomental or economic justification Introduce distortions to the Internal Market Have negative effects on consumers general willingness to sort their
packaging Damage the viability of existing proven and optimised system of collection and
recycling of ALL kinds of packaging Lead to an increase of environmental pollution Are an ineffective approach towards the littering problem No higher collection quotas for all kinds of plastic packaging from households
Therefore, we would question the imposition of mandatory deposit systems on one way packaging and suggest that producers and compliance organisations should be offered the freedom to meet recycling targets in the most appropriate manner for each member state without endangering the functioning of the internal market.
Cost factors of the different schemes
Scope of activities (household up to all packaging)
share of costs (recycling costs up to total costs)
recycling quotas (15% minimum quota of the Directive up to 60% for plastics)
collection system (bring system up to kerbside collection)
time of implementation (1 year up to 10 years)
need to cover all households
possible ways of recovery (energy recovery possible?)
number of free-riders
Labour costs
How to ensure the effective use of industries funding Packaging Tax system like Denmark
No control from industry about the use of the tax Packaging Tax system like Netherlands
Partly control about the use of the tax Packaging Tax system like Iceland
Full control about the use of the tax Shared responsibility system like in France
Incentives to local authorities to improve waste management system and to save industries and consumers money
Full cost system like in Belgium Incentives to local authorities to improve waste management system and to save
industries money Full control about sorting and recycling by tendering process
Full cost system like in Austria Full control about the whole system by tendering process
Full cost system like in Germany No control about the use of the fees as all players are for profit
Incentive system like in the UK No control about the use of the fees by the recyclers
Lessons learned
All stakeholders should agree on the common goal and the way to reach this goal
The legislation has to be realistic and feasible Legislation has to be flexibel to allow adaption of the system
to local circumstances Legislation has to take into account the whole waste
management Government has to monitor the implementation Obliged Industry (fillers and retailers) has to involve fully itself
and has to be pro-active Local authorities have to accept the help of industry experts
in designing their waste management system
What is the alternative of EPR?
Packaging Taxes Denmark: 140 million € taxes for 5,4 million people (26 € / inhabitant) Netherlands: 350 million € taxes for 16,4 million people (21 € / inhabitant) Money mainly not used for recycling of packaging No influence of industry how money is used Are local authorities asked to improve their waste mangement system?
Mandatory Deposit for one way beverage containers Offen in addition to packaging taxes Costs minimum 3 times higher than collection system for all packaging High investments from retailers needed (700 million € in Germany) Lots of space in the retail shops needed High running costs per year (800 million € per anno in Germany)
Membership 2008
Sweden
PolandGermany
France
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
Norway
Latvia
Belgium
AustriaHungary
Greece
Luxembourg
Turkey
Lithuania
Slovenia
CzechRepublic
Slovakia
Cyprus
Great Britain
Malta
Bulgaria
Estonia
Romania
Ukraine
Finland
Iceland
Netherlands
Canada
Croatia
PRO EUROPE‘S Mission
To help its national recovery schemes by: Promoting convergence of regulations and administration
Protecting and promotion of the Green Dot
Being a Know how provider to members, their clients and authorities
Running a network of exchanges and experiences
Supporting secondary raw materials markets
Offering added value services to members and their clients
Promoting holistic, stable, ecologically and economically feasible packaging waste management systems
Exchange of Know-How
Working Groups Technical Working Group (lead by Eco-Emballages)
Congress & Communication (lead by DSD)
Prevention (lead by Eco Embes)
System Development (lead by EKO-KOM)
Regulatory Affairs Committee (lead by FOST Plus)
Workshops Marketing
Deposit for one way beverage containers
Biodegradable packaging
Relation to local authorities
Best practices in collection, sorting and recycling
Facts and Figures (2007/2008)
31 compliance schemes active in 31 countries in 2008 of which 25 use the Green Dot
About 140,000 companies are licensees / members of the PRO EUROPE member systems
More than 460 billion packaging items have been labeled with the Green Dot
More than 565 million inhabitants live in PRO EUROPE member countries
More than 310 million inhabitants have access to separate collection of PRO EUROPE member systems
More than 22,100,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007
More than 1,800,000 tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by PRO EUROPE member systems in 2007
Founded and run by or on behalf of fillers, packaging producers, importers and retailers
Independent from government and waste management companies
Financing of selective collection, sorting, recovery and recycling of packaging waste by industry
Communicating to consumers to create new behaviors mostly by using the Green Dot
Internalisation of external costs
Implementation of Producer Responsibility
What does a PRO EUROPE member Organisation stand for ?
How can we help?
Joachim Quoden
PRO EUROPE s.p.r.l.
Rue Martin V, 40
1200 Brussels
Belgium
www.pro-europe.info
Phone: +49 171 201 70 55