Post on 08-May-2015
Packaging Waste Management following
the Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR) Principle 1995-2012 in Europe and
the Austrian Experience"
Kiev, October 2012
6th Environmental Action Plan 2008
Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC
Source: EU Publication
EU Waste Stream Regulations based on EPR
(Extended Producer Responsibility
• Packaging and Packaging Waste(1994 etc)
• Batteries and Accumulators (1994 etc)
• End of life Vehicles (2002)
• Waste Electronic and Electrical Equipment (2002)
Design/construction
Production
Distribution
Utilisation
End-of-life
Waste
treatment
Product Life Cycle
Reuse
Recycling
Producer
Responsibility
Extended
Producer
Responsibility
What is Extended Producer Responsibility ?
The Internalisation of Waste Management Costs
–
The Theory
• Goods producer must pay for the treatment of the packaging of his
products at the end of their lives
• These costs increase the market price of the products
• Goods producer must minimize these costs to stay competitive
• Goods producer targets product design to reduce waste volumes
,facilitate recovery and recycling
• 24 packaging reciovery systems in EU Member states and 6 systems in other
European states are active following the EPR principle
• About 185,000 companies are contributing through EPR based systems
• out 400 million inhabitants have access to separate collection financed by
EPR based systems
• About 33,300,000 tons of packaging have been recovered by´those
systems in 2010, among them more than 3.3 Mio t plastic packaging
• 28 systems are using the GREEN DOT symbol and are member of the PRO-
Europe Association
• In the EU growth of MSW as well as packaging waste was decoupled from
GDP growth
The Results
Source: ProE
MSW Generation vs Economic Growth GDP EU 12 In Mio. €/pa
Waste Generation
Source: European Environmental Agency 2011, Eurostat
1 000 000
27 EU Member States, Accession States and other
Countries
EPR, but close to market
UK (PRN System)
2 countries without any compliance scheme => Taxes
Denmark, Hungary
1 country with tax and compliance
scheme The Netherlands
Change from 2013 ! Tax versus EPR Ukraine ?
Fund versus EPR Croatia ?
1 country with Fund Scheme run by
industry Iceland
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
Implementation of the EU Packaging Directive
Source: Pro-Europe 2011
Achievement of EU Targets
Source: Eurostat 2010
Packaging Recovery Systems
Examples of Business Volumes 2010
Country Name Revenue Inhabitants Revenue/Inh Profit/pa
(Mio €) (Mio) (€) (Mio €)
France EcoEmballages 540 65 8,31 non profit
Belgium FostPlus 140 11 12,73 non profit
Germany DSD 600 82 14,60 (*) ca. 30
Czech R Ekokom 64 10 6,40 non profit
Spain Ecoembes 410 47 8,72 non profit
Austria ARA 120 8 15,00 non profit
(*) 50% market share, Rev/Inh adjusted accordingly
Welfare effects of the Packaging Directive /
Example ARA System in Austria 1994-2003
• Domestic Added Value created ca. 1.000 Mio €
•
• New jobs created ca. 2.000
• Incremental taxes to government ca. 200 Mio €
• Direct Investments by Waste Industry ca. 130 Mio €
Source: Institute for Higher Studies, Austria 2004
• „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
volumes at local level
The Three Main Types of EPR Systems
Source: ProE
The latest EU study: “Use of Economic Instruments and Waste
Management Performances”
EC DG ENV 10.April 2012
Among the analysis of success of the various political options the
study found that:
“the most successful EPR systems appear to have some
common features:
• a common fully private body
• run, owned and supported by the opbligated producers
• requiring producers to finance collection and
recycling…“
• Legislation has to be realistic, feasible, flexible and must be
enforced by the government
• The obliged industry has to play their role and take
responsibility
• Freeriding (non-participation) must be minimized
• Government has to implement an integrated approach with
additional tools like landfill taxes / ban, PAYT systems, Green
Procurement rules, infrastructure to treat non recyclable waste
• Existing recovery systems have to be integrated e.g. the
informal sector
Lessons learned
Source: ARA, ProE
• At the start, the necessary recovery and recycling infrastructure has
to be promoted
• To ensure fair nationwide build up of separate collection, the best
solution seems to be a single system approach with competition on
the collection, sorting and recycling level
• There must be a clear and strong message to consumers and citizens
to inform and motivate them towards separate collection
• country targets should be set consistent within the existing
framework of MSW management e.g the level of landfilling, recycling,
incineration etc capacities and grow at a harmonized rate
Lessons learned (cont)
Source: ARA, ProE
Japan
Spanien, Sevilla
Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 1
Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 3
Drecnica, Slovenia
Florence, Italy
WS_CCHBC_19102005 Seite 18
Frankreich, Korsika
Argentinien, Buenos Aires
Packaging Waste – Curbside Collection 2
ARA – PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY PUT INTO PRACTICE
Vienna, 19.6.2012
AUSTRIA: FACTS AND FIGURES
Capital Vienna
Area 84,000 km²
Population 8.4 million
GNP 2009¹⁾ 275.5 billion €
GNP per capita 29,700 €
Post consumer wastes (MSW and others)²⁾ 3.7 million tons
Packaging waste³⁾ 1.1 million tons
1) Eurostat, as of November 2009. 2) Federal Ministry of Environment, 2008. 3) Federal Ministry of Environment, 2007.
MSW IN AUSTRIA: TWO REGULATIONS FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Source: Federal Environment Agency Austria, 2009.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Biowaste collection and treatment
Recycling from separate collection
Treatment of household hazardous waste
Thermal treatment / Incineration
Mechanical-biological treatment
Untreated waste to controlled landfills
1.0%
12.9%
0.4%
5.9%
16.7%
63.1%
18.2%
32.3%
2.3%
34.7%
8.8%
3.7%
Packaging Ordinance
Landfill Ordinance
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR PACKAGING: ARA SYSTEM
AGR
Paper Plastics Metals Wood Compounds Textiles Ceramics Biodegradable
materials
Glass *
ARA
More than 15,000 licensees transfer to ARA their obligations arising under the Packaging Ordinance
Producers
Fillers, packers
importers
Retailers
Local authorities
Collection companies
Recycling companies
*
ARA System organises the nation-wide collection and recovery of packaging waste from households and industry and meets the targets set by the Ministry of Environment
Local authorities and more than 200 collection and recycling companies are the operational backbone
ARA Altstoff Recycling Austria AG AGR Austria Glasrecycling GmbH
* System operator according to Art. 29 Waste Management Act for each packaging material
ARA SYSTEM – SERVICE RANGE AND STRUCTURE
Founded by Austrian packaging manufacturers, fillers, packers, importers and trade companies to ensure compliance with the Austrian Packaging Ordinance
One-stop provider of compliance for household and commercial packaging waste
Non-profit orientation
No cross-subsidies between household and commercial sector or between packaging materials
Specifications for regional collection systems at district level define the service scope and responsibilities of private collectors and municipalities and are up-dated annually.
Local authorities and municipalities provide ARA with country-wide collection infrastructures and offer communication at the local level.
For collection, sorting and recovery, public tenders are held every 3 to 5 years.
ARA COLLECTION AND RECOVERY SERVICES
Collection from private households
Collection from small shops
Regional collection centers
Commercial collection services
Customized industrial collection services
Event services
Sorting of municipal and commercial wastes
Energy recovery from packaging in municipal solid waste
ELEMENTS OF THE ARA RECYCLING VALUE CHAIN
Collection infrastructure
Transport (optional)
Sorting Recycling Recovery
Energy recovery
Material recycling
Sorting plant
Customized industrial collection
Local communities
Public drop off containers
Household collection: Curbside bag collection
Local collection centers (MRF)
Curbside container collection
Regional collection
center Industrial and commercial collection
Collection
Private or public waste collectors
ARA SYSTEM – RESOURCES AND PARTNERS
As of 1 January 2010.
3 Service
offices
4 Aluminium
recycling
companies
458 Municipal partners
ca. 140 Collection centers for
commercial packaging
ca. 1,100 Municipal Recycling centers
3 Glass recycling
companies
30 Wood recycling
companies
4 Metal recycling
companies
8 Paper recycling companies
25 Plastic recycling
companies
267 Waste consultants
96 Collectors
9 Shredders 37 Transporters 19 Sorters
DIFFERENT MEANS OF LIGHTWEIGHT PACKAGING COLLECTION
COLLECTION AND RECOVERY IN 2010
Packaging material Collection containers Containers per
1,000 residents
Collection [tons]
Recovery¹) [tons]
Paper, cardboard 1,100,000 130 342,800 342,800
Glass 81,000 10 216,100 209,900
Plastics and lightweight packaging (container collection)
233,000 50
215,200 178,300
Households serviced by curbside (bag) collection
1,444,000 400
(sets of bags)
Metals 50,000 6 40,300 32,900
Wood -- -- 20,700 20,900
Total 2,908,000 835,100 784,800 1) Net figures.
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
800 000
900 000
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Tons
Glass*
Lightweight packaging incl. Wood
Metals
Paper & cardboard
ARA PACKAGING WASTE COLLECTION 1995 -2010: 34% GROWTH PROVIDES SECONDARY RAW MATERIALS AND SAVES 620,000 TONS CO2 EQUIVALENTS PER YEAR
* Glass: AGR
+0.6%
-0.5%
+3.2%
+0.8%
835,146 t
Data: ARA 2011
TOP RANKS FOR PACKAGING WASTE RECOVERY IN AUSTRIA
Source: EUROSTAT 2009
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
BE AT DE CZ LU UK SK NL IE SE FR IT DK PT BG ES FI EE PL GR HU LT SI LV RO CY MT
recycling rate total recovery rate
COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNE VIENNA 2011