Transcript Document

The Future of Sustainable
Packaging: Increasing the
value of a throw-away-item
Anne-Mette Jørgensen
Director Projects, IMSA Amsterdam
Utrecht, May 20th, 2010
SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING: A
CONTRADICTION IN TERMS
• Designed for temporary use
• Associated with throw-away-lifestyle
• Difficult to control -> litter on streets, in
nature, in oceans
• Seen to contribute substantially to Plastic
Soup
• Symbol of waste of resources
• Closely associated with transportation of
goods (globalisation)
• Plastics associated with toxic substances –
threat to environment and human health
• Paper associated with deforestation and
destruction of biodiversity
2
PACKAGING AS A SYMBOL OF INSUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLE
3
BUT CAN WE MISS IT??
NO!!
• Even the most ‘primitive’ cultures depend on packaging
• Packaging is essential to the transportation of goods – some
goods (e.g. water) cannot be transported at all without
packaging
• Without packaging, products decay faster -> more waste of
resources
• Packaging is essential to hygiene
• Without packaging, we can convey very little information about
a product to consumers
• And so on…
PACKAGING HAS A HIGH VALUE
4
PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (1)
• Each European produces 176 kg of packaging waste each year (EEA, 2005)
• In the EU-15, per capita consumption of packaging increased with 6,8% from
1998 – 2006
• Outside EU-15 increase is much larger: e.g. 9,5% from 2004-2006 in new EU-8
5
PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (2)
Packaging waste generation rises with economic growth
6
PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (3)
• Ca. 70% of packaging material is used for food and beverages
• Use of paper & board and plastic packaging is increasing
7
PACKAGING – SOME FACTS (4)
• 2% of all oil won world-wide is used for
packaging
• World-wide only 5% of plastic packaging is
recycled
• 43% of paper production in EU is used for
packaging
• World-wide paper production is accountable
for more than 40% of all timber felled
• In the EU, packaging accounts for ca. 1/3 of
household waste – in the US it accounts for
more than 50%
If world population grows to the projected 9 billion in 2050 and
Global GDP grows at a conservative 4% a year, this could imply a
growth in packaging waste of almost 700% by 2050
8
2010 - 2050: WE REACH THE TOP!
• Oil peak
• Population peak
• Phosphate peak
• Water peak
• Pollution peak
• Fertile soil peak
• Biodiversity peak
• Forest peak
• …
• GDP peak??
 Increasing demand for ever scarcer resources: packaging versus food?!
9
CLUB OF ROME,
LIMITS TO GROWTH – THE 30 YEARS UPDATE, 2004
Reference scenario – Business as usual
pollution
resources
population
industrial output
per capita
food per capita
1900
2000
2100
10
POLICY DEVELOPMENTS TOWARDS 2050
• Collapse of Wall Street & Mother Earth: end of free
market ideology?
• Hot, flat and crowded: globalisation of people;
regionalisation of production? Changing lifestyles and
transportation patterns?
• Intensified policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and mitigate climate change
• State interventions to protect availability of scarce
resources: oil, water, metals, phosphate, …
• Incentives to save scarce resources, e.g. bans/taxes on
plastic bags and other superfluous packaging
11
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO?
Current strategies for sustainable packaging
focus on one or more of four options:
• New materials
• Reduce
• Reuse
• Recycle
12
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? – NEW MATERIALS
• Focus is on a shift from fossil-based to bio-based &
biodegradable materials
• Advantage: (partly) solves problem of plastic litter,
incl. Plastic Soup
• Disadvantages
– Many bio-based materials have a less favourable
carbon-balance than fossil-based plastics
– Scarcity of fertile land, water and phosphate
eventually limit availability of bio-based
resources – while demand for food enormously
increases
13
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - REDUCE
• Just to stay at the current level of
resource demand for packaging material, a
Factor 7 reduction of resource use per
capita is needed by 2050!
• Substantial reduction could be achieved by
more efficient packaging (max. one layer)
and by a change of lifestyle (less fast food
on the go; more regional food products)
• Reducing beyond a certain point may lead
to quality loss and increased waste of the
product inside the packaging
• This approach could take place at the cost
of jobs & income in packaging industry
www.preventpack.be
14
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - REUSE
• Reusing is feasible only for packaging that can
be collected in an undamaged state and
sufficiently cleaned or for packaging that is so
strong and attractive that people want to
keep it and reuse it themselves
• In most developed countries reuse of
packaging material is subject to very strict
legislation and illegal for many purposes
• Focus on reuse demands a fundamentally
different approach to packaging design and
logistics; focus on solidity, durability,
cleanability and multi-functionality
• Also demands change in lifestyle: consumer
needs to contribute actively to reuse
15
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO? - RECYCLE
• Recycling is often the only option, but difficult, costly, energy intensive
and sometimes associated with health and safety risks
• Current recycling = downcycling, i.e. prolongation of the product’s life
time, but eventually resources become waste
Recycling and energy
recovery of packaging
waste is increasing in the
EU-15
16
FROM DOWNCYCLING TO UPCYCLING
• Real recycling – Cradle-to-Cradle - means: continuously keeping all
resources within a cycle; i.e. without loss of quality or nutrients
Product of consumption
Product of service
Biological
cycle
Technical
cycle
• This approach implies a different approach to packaging design, logistics
and waste handling
17
SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING IN THE FUTURE
To address the challenges of the future, we need to combine and improve all
four approaches. Sustainable packaging implies designing packaging in such a
way that:
• It reduces the net environmental impact of the product throughout its
life cycle, i.e. the packaging leads to a larger saving of resources in the
life cycle of the product it protects than it costs to produce the
packaging itself = functionality
• It is healthy and safe in any possible use and stage of its life cycle – also
when it is upcycled into e.g. a food-contact material or when used as
compost for agriculture = quality
• Packaging that is supposed to enter the technical cycle is a valuable
resource, which is worthwhile collecting so the materials may be
recycled without loss of quality or upcycled into an even more valuable
product = purity
• Packaging that is meant for the biological cycle is fully biodegradable,
non-toxic and functions as a nutrient to our soil = nourishing
• Production process takes place using renewable energy sources and
minimising transportation of materials = efficiency
18
NEED FOR NEW BUSINESS MODELS
To achieve this, new business models are crucial:
• Producer retains ownership and responsibility throughout
life cycle
• Government installs price incentives for functionality and
recycling/upcycling
• Government and chain partners support waste separation
and take-back systems with incentives for consumers
• Chain partners share information about product contents
and cooperate in developing new materials
19
STELLINGEN
• Voor duurzame verpakkingen moeten we af van het principe
van de drie Rs.
• Verpakkingen moeten meer waarde krijgen, ook nadat ze
afgedankt zijn.
• Om dit te realiseren zijn nieuwe vormen van samenwerking
binnen de keten onmisbaar:
– De designer en de gebruiker van de verpakking moeten
al vanaf het begin nadenken over wat er met de
verpakking moet gebeuren op het moment dat ie wordt
weggegooid
– De gebruiker van de verpakking en de detailhandel
moeten zich afvragen hoe zij ertoe kunnen bijdragen dat
de verpakking in de keten/cyklus blijft
– De afvalverwerker en de verpakkingsproducent
moeten zich afvragen hoe zij ervoor kunnen zorgen dat
de verpakking na gebruik zijn waarde behoudt of
vergroot
20
Dank voor uw aandacht!
Voor meer informatie:
www.imsa.nl