Transcript Slide 1

Packaging and Packaging Waste Management legal framework
June 5, 2012
Split, Croatia
“Management of Packaging Waste in Europe –
Learnings and best practices”
by Joachim Quoden
Managing Director
PRO EUROPE
PRO EUROPE Facts and Figures 2010-2012

35 compliance schemes active in 35 countries in 2011 of which 28
use the Green Dot

About 185,000 companies are contributing licensees / members of
the PRO EUROPE member systems

About 400 million inhabitants have access to separate collection
financed by PRO EUROPE member systems

About 33,300,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by PRO
EUROPE member systems in 2010

More than 26 million tons of C0² equivalent has been saved by the
work of PRO EUROPE member systems in 2010

More than 3,300,000 tons of plastic packaging have been recycled by
PRO EUROPE member systems in 2010
PRO EUROPE‘S Mission
To help its national recovery schemes by:
– Providing expert advice to members, their clients and
authorities
– Running a network of exchanges and experiences
– Protecting and promotion of the Green Dot
– Promoting convergence of regulations and administration
– 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
What does a PRO EUROPE member Organisation stand for ?
• 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
European Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive
A good example for a successful legislation in
the EU and model for other countries?
Targets of the PPWD
• To avoid or reduce the impact of packaging
waste on the environment
• To harmonize national regulations regarding
packaging & packaging waste management in
the EU-countries
• To guarantee the functioning of the internal
market
• BUT, total freedom for Member States how
to reach the targets! So, there is not ONE
model solution to apply around the world!
European Packaging Directive 94/62/EG
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Recovery
overall
Recycling
overall
Recycling
Glass
Directive 1994 - Deadline 2001
Recycling
Paper
Recycling
Metals
Recycling
Plastics
Directive 2004 - Deadline 2008
Several special deadlines for new member states until 2015
Country Performance: Overall Recycling Quotas in 2009(%)
Denmark
Belgium
Netherlands
Germany
Czech Rep.
Austria
Ireland
Italy
UK
Luxembourg
Spain
Portugal
Sw eden
Slovakia
Lithuania
Estonia
France
Finland
Hungary
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Latvia
Greece
Cyprus
Romania
Poland
Malta
Implementation of the Packaging Directive
2 countries without any
compliance scheme =>
Taxes
Denmark, Hungary
EPR, but close to
market
UK (PRN System)
1 country with tax and
compliance scheme
The Netherlands
Change from 2013 !
Tax versus EPR
Ukraine ??
27 EU countries +
2 EEA + 2 Accession +
other countries
27 with Producer Responsibility
Austria, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, Cyprus,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Malta,
Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Italy,
Slovenia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Norway,
Finland, Serbia, Israel
Fund versus EPR
Croatia ???
1 country with Fund
Scheme run by
industry
Iceland
Why did a few countries choose a tax solution?
• Some countries believe in a strong state that
has to be involved in all matters of relevance
• Some governments believe that via taxes they
can influence the choice of packaging material
by promoting „good“ packaging and punishinig
„bad“ packaging
• A way to collect a lot of money from
inhabitants under the excuse of environmental
protection (Denmark: 26€/inh/y)
Why did many countries choose EPR?
• Recognizing that industry with its
competence can find solutions that are
efficient both for the environment and for
economy
• Inventing new taxes is not favoured by voters
• Packaging Supply Chain has a big influence in
the design of packaging and only this can
lead to optimisation of packaged products
Producer responsibility- several ways of implementation
 „Dual model“ (e.g. Austria, Germany)
Full responsibility for industry for collection, sorting
and recycling; separate collection system besides
collection of local authorities, limited influence from
local authorities
 „Shared model“ (e.g. France, Spain, Czech Republic)
Shared responsibility between industry and local
authorities, common agreements on the way of
collection necessary
 Tradable Credits Model (UK, Poland)
No link between industry and collection at local level
So, which is the best system ?
• All 12 „old“ countries have fulfilled the minimum
recycling and recovery quotas of the EU Packaging
Directive (deadline 31.12.2008)!
• But, all 12 systems have different goals so that it is
(nearly) impossible even to benchmark them
• Every system has different costs to bear instead or
in addition to the costs of municipalities.
• So, the question is which are YOUR goals for YOUR
country!
What are your goals?
• Achieving certain recycling rates?
• Establishing infrastructure for the recycling of
household packaging?
• Gaining certain level of control of the system?
• Ensuring transparency?
• Optimisation/prevention initiatives?
• Education and information of the inhabitants?
• Ecological criteria for the recycling of used
packaging?
Key lessons learned I
 All stakeholders should agree on a common solution
 Legislation has to be realistic, feasible, flexible
 Focus legislation on goals and objectives and ensure a
level playing field
 Every stakeholder has to play their role
 Legislation has to be enforced by the government
 Governments have to implement an integrated approach
with additional tools like landfill taxes / ban, PAYT
systems, Green Procurement rules, infrastructure to treat
non recyclable waste …..
Key lessons learned II
 If goal is high collection and recycling results especially
for household packaging, the best solution is a single
system approach with competition on the collection,
sorting and recycling level
 If goals include additional targets like prevention,
education, consumer communication etc., a single
system approach is able to deliver consistent projects
and messages
 If the goal is achieving the minimum required recycling
rate at the lowest cost possible, competition at the
“system” level could be introduced
Key lessons learned III
 If you choose to have competition on the system level,
very clear rules have to be set which have to be fulfilled
by all market players and which have to be strongly
monitored and also enforced by the government
 If waste management companies are also operating
compliance schemes (Vertical integration) a “Chinese
Wall” is needed (DG Competition guidelines 2005)
Challenges at EU and national level
•
•
•
•
•
•
Significant differences in country performance (e.g. span from
just above 10% to almost 90% in recycling quotas in 2009).
Significant variance in implementation of, and compliance
with, EU waste legislation.
Pending key issues – e.g. no final agreement on updated list of
examples given in Annex I of the Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive to illustrate the definition of packaging.
Fight against Food Waste has to be taken into account when
designing packaging
Fight against marine debris and its sources is increasing on the
worldwide agenda
Separate collection from 2015 forward and 50% recycling of
ALL household waste from 2020 will be obligatory ( WFD)
Evaluation of the EU Commission
• The European Commission has just published 2
important studies about the implementation of
waste legislation in Europe
• ‘Study on Coherence of Waste Legislation’,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/p
df/Coherence_waste_legislation.pdf
• 'Use of Economic Instruments and Waste
Management Performances,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/use.htm
(under "New" )
Optimization tools proposed by PRO EUROPE’s
members: for each step of the optimization’s approach
INITIATION
SYSTEMATIZATION
VALORIZATION &
DIFFUSION
AWARENESS
Planning Assistance
Best practices
Trainings
Environmental calculators
Design for recycling tools
Publications
Consumer
information
How can we help?
Joachim Quoden
PRO EUROPE s.p.r.l.
Rue Martin V, 40
1200 Brussels
Belgium
[email protected]
www.pro-europe.info
Phone: +49 171 201 70 55